SARITA UPNEJA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -HEARD learned counsel for the parties. In an unfortunate incident happened on in Shakuntala nursing Home, Sri Ganganagar, Smt. Manju devi died after giving birth to a girl child on 15. 1. 2001. A FIR was lodged on the same day, 19. 1. 2001 by one Nanak Chand Singhal s/o Durga Prasad Aggarwal relative of deceased Manju Devi. The case was registered and thereafter, post mortem was also conducted and the post mortem report dated 19. 1. 2001 was obtained by the prosecution. The post-mortem say as under:

(2.) A medical board was also constituted who gave its interim report on 23. 1. 2001. The statement of various witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. wherein the statements of Dr. K. L. Gupta and Dr. Indra Pal Singh Poonia who signed the report dated 23. 1. 2001 were also recorded. In addition to above statements of two doctors, the statement of Dr. Kailash, Jr. Specialist (Medicine), Govt. Hospital, Sri Ganganagar, dr. Ram Partap Poonia, CMHO, Hanuman-garh; Dr. B. R. Kataria, Jr. specialist (Gy-nae), Govt. Hospital, Sri Ganganagar; dr. Ashok Gupta of one Mahaveer Nursing home, Raisinghnagar, relative of deceased and Dr. Ashok Garg, MD (Medicine) were also recorded. After investigation, a challan was submitted in the Court and cognizance was taken by the Court vide order dated 22. 3. 2001 after registering the criminal case No. 141/2001 under Section 304 Part ii IPC and the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge by order dated 30. 3. 2001. Learned Additional Sessions judge, Sri Ganganagar vide order dated 18. 10. 2002 held that no case under Section 304 Part-II IPC is made out and it is a case under Section 304a IPC only and since it is triable by the Magistrate, therefore, the same was sent to the Court of Chief judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar.

(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the prosecution by preferring this petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. on the ground that from the material available on record, no case is made out of committing any offence by the petitioner under Section 304a IPC or even any other offence. It is submitted that the continuation of the prosecution of the petitioner on the basis of the case of the prosecution is nothing but abuse of process of the Court and deserves to be quashed.