IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5070 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-650 Year-2016 Thana- BHABHU(KAIMUR) COMPLAIN C District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Dr. Kiran Singh Wife of Sri Anand Kishore Singh Resident of Village Akhlashpur, P.S. Bhabhua, District- Kaimur. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. State Of Bihar and Anr 2. Bhual Ram Son of Munna Ram Resident of Ramgarh, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District- Kaimur Bhabhua. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. D. K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Alexander Ashok, Advocate Mr. Jawed Akhtar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Tribhuwan Narayan, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 3 07-08-2026 Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and the learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner has filed the present application seeking following relief: "That this present application is for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 11.01.2017 passed in Complaint Case NO. 650 of 2016 by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Vth, Kaimur at Bhabhua." 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant took his wife namely Sarita Devi, having delivery pain to the petitioner for examination. The petitioner was posted Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5070 of 2017(3) dt.07-08-2026 2/4 as doctor in Sadar Hospital, Bhabhua. The complainant’s wife was examined by her and it was further alleged that there was a demand of Rs. 10,000/- for the treatment. The complainant was further advised by the petitioner to take her to private clinic of the petitioner, where again having complications demand of further Rs. 22,000/- was made by the petitioner. After the treatment, the wife of the complainant died and one dead baby was found in the womb. 4. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. D. K. Sinha submits that the petitioner was a doctor and had examined the wife of the complainant, namely, Sarita Devi, and had also given some advice, however, due to some complications, she died during the treatment. It has further been submitted that the allegations of negligence and improper treatment is absolutely false as it was a case where the patient had developed some medical complications and on account of that she had died. It has next been submitted that there is no report of an expert which would certify that it was on account of negligence on the part of the petitioner, that the death had occurred. It has also been pointed out that in view of the same, no offence under the alleged Section 166(B) or 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code would be drawn in the facts and circumstances of the case. It Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5070 of 2017(3) dt.07-08-2026 3/4 has next been submitted that if there is no evidence with regard to any rash or negligent act on behalf of the petitioner, the order taking cognizance becomes bad. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposes the application and has submitted that the petitioner had not treated the patient with due diligence and care and in fact, in a very negligent manner carried the examination and despite repeated request, the patient was not attended to and during the treatment, the wife of the complainant died. It has further been submitted that it was on account of the negligent act of the petitioner that the wife of the complainant had died and therefore, there is nothing wrong in the order taking cognizance. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact that it was a case where the petitioner had attended the wife of the complainant as a doctor and carried out her duty as a doctor and had admitted the patient and only during the course of treatment on account of some complication, the wife of the complainant had died, this Court finds that the said act of the petitioner cannot be said to be an offence under Section 166(B) or 304(A) of the I.P.C. This Court also finds that the act of the doctor in discharge of her duties Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5070 of 2017(3) dt.07-08-2026 4/4 cannot be doubted without any third-party opinion i.e. of a medical expert, which would certify that the petitioner had in fact, acted in a negligent manner and on account of her negligent act or non-treatment, the death had occurred. 7. In view of the above, the order dated 11.01.2017 passed in Complaint Case No. 650 of 2016 by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Vth, Kaimur at Bhabhua stands quashed. 8. The present application is allowed. sweta/- (Sourendra Pandey, J) U