ISHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of F.I.R. No. 377 dated 9.9.2011, under Section 304 -A, 201, 467, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station City Mahendergarh, Haryana and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was a doctor/surgeon in Jeewan Anand Nursing Home and had operated Sushila Devi (since deceased) on 8.5.2011. Patient was discharged on 11.5.2011 in a stable condition. On 13.5.2011, patient complained of pain in her stomach and was again hospitalized. Petitioner recommended for an ultrasound examination of the abdomen of the patient. Since the patient was not satisfied, she was referred to another hospital. On 14.5.2011, patient was admitted in Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital cum Medical Research Institute, Jaipur and was again operated and during her treatment, she died on 17.5.2011. During investigation, statement of Doctor Nandini Sahni was recorded on 26.9.2011 and she reported that petitioner was innocent. On 8.6.2011, complainant moved a representation to Superintendent of Police, Narnaul. Action was advised to be taken against the petitioner and Doctor Sunil Kumar Yadav by Assistant District Attorney. Chief Medical Officer constituted a team of two doctors who gave their opinion on 8.8.2011 that petitioner was not negligent. However, F.I.R. in question was registered against the petitioner and Doctor Sunil Kumar Yadav. Thereafter, Director General, Health Services, Haryana ordered the State level enquiry and Dr. Renu Pehal Malik conducted the enquiry and submitted report Annexure P -4 that petitioner was innocent. Learned counsel has further submitted that in view of the report of the medical experts, F.I.R. in question was liable to be quashed. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on 'Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab and another' : AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3180 (1), wherein it was held as under: -

(3.) LEARNED State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No. 4, on the other hand, have opposed the petition.