The Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) dismissed the petitioner’s criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of FIR and related orders, holding that there was no illegality or procedural infirmity in the investigation and framing of charges for offences under Sections 304-A and 420 IPC against the petitioner.
The petitioner treated the complainant’s daughter-in-law during pregnancy and assured a normal delivery. On leaving for Ajmer, the daughter-in-law was left under unskilled hospital staff, causing newborn death by strangulation of umbilical cord. The complainant alleged gross negligence causing death.
CID(CB)’s investigation included expert medical reports which found poor clinical judgment and unskilled treatment as causes. It was also found that the petitioner represented herself as a gynecological expert without qualifications and that necessary facilities like sonography were unavailable.
The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR, the order returning the case file for filing of challan, the cognizance order, the framing of charges, and dismissal of revision petition. The petitioner claimed lack of allegations of medical negligence in the FIR, irregular re-investigation without expert medical examination, and violation of Supreme Court guidelines from Jacob Mathew[1] regarding prosecution of doctors.
The petitioner highlighted the fact that the police investigation initially led to a negative final report, after which re-investigation by CID(CB) was ordered, which led to the finding of negligence.
The Bench comprising Justice Anand Sharma observed that the FIR must be read in conjunction with evidence collected in investigation. Police is empowered to conduct further investigation under CrPC Sections 173(3) and (8) even after filing a negative report. The Court found that the trial court and revisional court had appropriately examined evidence before framing charges.
To the petitioner’s argument that unqualified representation by petitioner should shield from criminal charges, the Court held that despite lack of technical qualifications, the petitioner’s conduct amounted to alleged criminal negligence under the law.
The Court found the petition devoid of merit and it was dismissed with no interference under inherent jurisdiction. Observations of the Bench were limited to jurisdictional scope and did not prejudice trial outcomes.
Case relied on:
1. Jacob Mathew vs State of Punjab and Anr., (2005) 6 SCC 1
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rinesh Gupta Advocate, Mr. Saurabh Pratap Singh Chouhan Advocate, Mr. Pulkit Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Sharma Advocate, Mr. Samat Alam Advocate & Mr. Ashutosh Singh Naruka Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1/ State: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Public Prosecutor.
For Respondent No. 2: Mr. Anshuman Saxena Advocate with Mr. Divyansh Saini Advocate.
[1] (2005) 6 SCC 1
