##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2385/2026

Rajesh Gaur S/o Sh. Laxmi Narayan, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Shanti Nurshing Home, New Mandi Gharsana, Tehsil Gharsana,

District Sri Ganganagar (Raj).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor

2. Subhas Chander S/o Om Prakash, R/o Khanuwali, Tehsil Rawla, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Singh Daspa, Sr.

Advocate assisted by Mr. DS Gharsana, Mr. IS Rathore, Mr. Sourav

Shekhar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

25/03/2026 Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case

the petitioner is a practicing doctor and the incident regarding which FIR is registered is death of a pregnant lady during the

course of delivery.

Counsel submits that petitioner had already referred the

matter to the Higher Center. Attention is also drawn towards the inquiry report of Board of doctors constituted by the CMHO dated 11.03.2026, wherein no negligence of the petitioner has been found. It is stated that thereafter another report was sought from the Medical Board, which also does not disclose any negligence on

(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 07:27:53 PM)

(Downloaded on 04/04/2026 at 01:58:17 PM)

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-2385/2026]

the part of the petitioner or any fault in the treatment given by

him before referring the patient to Higher Center.

It is stated that the continuation of the FIR is nothing but

gross abuse of the process of law and is contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jacob

Mathew Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2005(6) SCC 01

It is stated that the Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly stated

that the Investigating Agency before proceeding in the FIR has to

seek report from competent government doctor.

Counsel further submits that other offence added into the

case are only to frame the petitioner and to take case of the petitioner out of the scope of the guidelines laid down by Hon’ble

Apex Court in Jacob Mathew (supra).

Learned Public Prosecutor, though, opposes the arguments

raised but concur to the opinion of the Medical Board, report whereof clearly says that there is no negligence on the part of the

petitioner.

This Court has considered averments made by the petitioner

and has gone through the FIR as well as report of Medical Board. The report clearly states that there was no negligence of the

petitioner.

There is merit in the submissions made by learned counsel

and the matter deserves consideration.

Issue notice.

Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of

respondent-State. Notice, thus, is required to be issued to

respondent no.2 only, returnable within a period of four weeks.

(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 07:27:53 PM)

(Downloaded on 04/04/2026 at 01:58:17 PM)

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-2385/2026]

In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall not be arrested in

connection with FIR No.95/2026 registered at Police Station New Mandi Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar. However, the petitioner

shall be required to join the investigation.

(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J

115-Sanjay/-

(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 07:27:53 PM)

(Downloaded on 04/04/2026 at 01:58:17 PM)