ORDER

The petitioners/accused in STR.No.2081 of 2011 who are facing trial for the offence under Section 338 IPC on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry filed this quash petition.

2.The gist of the complaint is that the respondent's wife Mrs.S.Dharani was admitted in Puducherry Government Hospital on 26.05.2004 for second pregnancy delivery. On 07.06.2004 cesarean operation conducted, she gave birth to a male child and she was discharged from the hospital on 15.06.2004. The specific case against the petitioners is that due to negligence during cesarean operation, the said Mrs.S.Dharani developed complications and she developed tumor in her stomach. She was again admitted in the same hospital on 30.06.2004 as in-patient and without giving proper treatment, she was discharged on 13.07.2004. Subsequently she was taken to a Private Hospital at Tindivanam and later, to Government Hospital at Villupuram where she was advised surgery for the tumor in the stomach and she was further advised to approach the Puducherry Government Hospital for necessary treatment. When she was taken to the Puducherry Government Hospital, she was not given proper treatment and was discharged on 01.09.2004. For the negligence committed and improper cesarean operation, the complainant's wife Mrs.S.Dharani had developed oozing of pus. On the advise of a Doctor at Tindivanam, scan was taken at Sona Scan Centre, Puducherry on 02.09.2004. At that time, she was informed that during cesarean operation, some foreign object was left in the stomach which is the reason for all complications. Thereafter, on medical advise she was admitted at Santhosh Hospital, Besant Nagar, Chennai on 23.09.2004 and after a major surgery the foreign object was identified and removed from her stomach. The respondent's wife suffered all these serious ailments and pain due to the negligence of the Doctor who conducted surgery, to her at Government Hospital, Puducherry on 07.06.2004. Due to the negligence, the life of the said Dharani was in danger and only due to timely operation conducted, her life was saved. The Doctor in Government Hospital, Puducherry failed to give reason, on the other hand attempted to cover up their misdeeds. Hence, complaint was lodged with Grand Bazaar Police Station, Puducherry on 16.10.2004 which was not acted upon. Therefore, a private complaint was filed by the respondent before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry. The learned Magistrate caused enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and directed the Inspector of Police, Puducherry to cause an enquiry and a report was filed on 23.01.2012. Further, in the report it was stated that the victim Dharani filed a petition before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Puducherry in Consumer Complaint No.26/2005 which was pending as on the said date.

3.The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the respondent made bald and sweeping allegations against the Puducherry Government Hospital and was not specific about the Doctor who conducted cesarean operation and taken care of his wife. There is no specific overt act attributed against the petitioners, for any gross negligence and questioned competency of their qualification and work. The respondent suppressed the material fact of approaching the Consumer forum by filing consumer dispute which was dismissed both by the District Consumer Forum as well as State Consumer Forum. Thus, suppressing these facts, the complaint was lodged. It is further submitted that even according to the complaint, cesarean operation was conducted on 07.06.2004, complaint was lodged after six months, i.e. On 02.12.2004 and there is no reason given for taking the complaint on file by the Lower Court in the year 2011, after a lapse of nearly six years. Hence, it is barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Further, no reason was given by the Lower Court for condoning the delay in lodging the complaint and taking the complaint on