CHITRA BHATNAGAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the Order dated 06.05.2010 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, whereby he dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition No. 05/2010 in FIR No.154/01 registered at P.S. Roop Nagar.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is that a complaint was filed by Yadveer Singh Chauhan on 07.06.1998 to the SHO, P.S. Roop Nagar stating that his wife Sapna was admitted in Parmarth Mission Hospital on 08.03.1997 during her pregnancy for her treatment and was discharged on 19.03.1997. She was again admitted in the said hospital on 22.05.1997 where she delivered a child after a cesarean operation. It was stated by the complainant that his wife was experiencing pain in her abdomen due to infection and on the advice of Dr.V. Thukral , the uterus of the deceased was removed on 27.05.97, but she got no relief from the pain. THEreafter she regularly visited the hospital and was under the treatment of the present petitioner. THE deceased wife of the complainant underwent several X-rays, ultrasound and other tests which were seen by the petitioner and Dr.V. Thukral. As there was no relief to the wife of the complainant, she was discharged from the hospital on 19.05.1998 and her ailment was diagnosed as ,,Australia Antigen. She was thereafter taken to Hindu Rao Hospital by the complainant where she underwent an operation on 25.05.1998 and a sponge like foreign body nearly 17 cm. x 17 cm. with a tag nearly 11 cm. was removed from her abdomen and she was declared dead at 3.45 P.M. on 26.05.1998.

(3.) THE impugned order is challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner submitting that the ld. Revision Court had committed illegality in holding that the cognizance was taken on 03.12.2002 and not on 26.10.2004. It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that cognizance was barred by limitation as the first complaint was made on 07.06.1998 and summoning order was passed on 26.10.2004 after 6 years and 5 months. It was further submitted that the impugned order of summoning was also illegal as there was no relation between the caesarean surgery performed at the hospital and the death of the wife of the complainant after one year and further that the sponge recovered from the deceaseds abdomen was never preserved and presented before the Medical Board. It was also submitted that no MLC or postmortem report was prepared by the hospital where she breathed her last, to ascertain the true cause of death. Lastly, it was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that there was no police complaint made by the complainant about the recovery of sponge from the abdomen of his wife and these fact casts shadow on the veracity of the allegations made by the complainant.