1 2025:CGHC:2695 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 176 of 2025 1 - Nikhil Vishwas S/o Shri Sudheer Vishwas Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Ved Parsada, Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Masturi, District Bilashpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 16/01/2025 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 107/2023 pending before the 6th Additional 2 Sessions Judge Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur. 2. The brief facts of the case is that on 05.09.2022, FIR was lodged by Smt. Subhadra Bai Patel at Police Station- Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) against the petitioner under Section 308 of IPC stating that she is living at Village- Bed Parsada, Police Station Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). On 31.08.2022 her son namely Hetram Patel was suffering from Cold and Fever then she brought him to the petitioner’s clinic where the petitioner treated his son. Thereafter the health of the complainant’s son got deteriorated whereafter the complainant took her son to P.H.C. Hospital and later referred him to CIMS Hospital Bilaspur (C.G.). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is working as a medical practitioner and his work is to protect the life of patients. Even he committed any negligence during the course of treatment then he is only liable to be prosecuted under Section 338 of IPC. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Perusal of Final report reveals that during the investigation, the incident site was inspected and a sight map was prepared. Statements of witnesses and applicant were recorded. A memorandum statement was taken in which the accused admitted that he treated Hetram, son of the complainant, and gave him 3 injection. He also admitted that he runs a clinic at his residence and treats the people of the village. The clinic of the accused was inspected and it was found that the accused was keeping a huge quantity of tablets, injections, syrups, etc in his clinic, which were seized after giving accused a notice. The accused was asked to produce his medical degree whereafter he wrote that he does not have any medical degree. 7. The petitioner himself has admitted that he does not have a medical degree. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not a medical practitioner. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima