HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10128 of 2025 Court No. - 10 HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J. . 1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Pawan Bhaskar, learned counsel on behalf of the complainant, namely, Anoj Kumar is taken on record. However, his name has been shown as Manoj Kumar in this petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned F.I.R has been lodged on the basis of wrong and concocted story, as the petitioner is a registered medical practitioner. He further submits that on perusal of the contents of the F.I.R indicates that it may be a case of medical negligence, for which no F.I.R can be lodged. He also submits that the petitioner has not conducted the operation, as he is only an Anesthetist. However, upon a query, he initially stated that Dr. Irfan had conducted the operation. Subsequently, he stated that he does not know who had conducted the operation and prays for some time for filing the supplementary affidavit disclosing the name of the Doctor who conducted the operation. 3. Learned A.G.A on the basis of instructions has submitted that the statement of Dr. Irfan has been recorded, who has stated that the operation was conducted by Dr. Rashid who is an O.T. Technician. He also submits that the postmortem report indicates that the deceased had died on account of gross negligence on the part of the petitioner and other Doctors and it has also been opined that a Doctor could not have committed such a negligence which has been committed by the petitioner and other Doctors Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arun Kumar Saxena Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Niraj Singh Dr. Udai Bhan Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Others .....Respondent(s) because after operation, the stitching was not done. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 also vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the impugned F.I.R has rightly been lodged. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 also states that annexure no.3, which is operation note filed by the petitioner himself, clearly indicates the name of the surgeon Dr. Rashid. As per the statement of Dr. Irfan as informed by learned A.G.A he is an O.T. Technician. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to press this petition, therefore, it may be dismissed as not pressed with liberty to avail the appropriate remedy under B.N.S.S.2023. To which, there is no objection by the other side. 6. In view of above, the present writ petition is dismissed as not pressed with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy as may be available under law. November 10, 2025 Shahnaz CRLP No. 10128 of 2025 2 (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench