- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:266 CRL.P No. 1011 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1011 OF 2018 BETWEEN: DR. CHANDRABANU SINGH S/O C.N. SINGH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, SRI CBS LABORATORY, SRI POLY CLINIC AND NURSING HOME, BEHIND GOVT. AYURVEDIC HOSPITAL, MANDI MOHALLA MYSORE MYSURU CITY, KARNATAKA …PETITIONER (BY SMT. VAISHNAVI S. DESAI, ADVOCATE (AB)) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANDYA WEST POLICE, MANDYA, REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2. SMT. DEVAJAMMA D/O KARIPUTTAIAH, AGED 33 YEARS, R/AT KODI HALLI, MANDYA TALUK - 571 401 KARNATAKA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. PRAMOD R., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.46/2017 OF THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:266 CRL.P No. 1011 of 2018 ORAL ORDER Petitioner being accused No.3 in Cr.No.252/2014 of Mandya West police station is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him, now pending in SC. No.46/2017 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, for the offence punishable under Section 315 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'). 2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 as informant has filed the first information against accused Nos.1 and 2 alleging commission of the offence punishable under Sections 376, 420, 504, 506, 114 R/w Section 34 of IPC. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 3 alleging commission of the offence under Section 315 of IPC arraying the petitioner as accused No.3. The allegation made against the present petitioner is that, he being the medical officer prevented the child being born alive, he caused the death of the child and thereby, committed the offence under Section 315 of IPC. 3. It is stated that the petitioner being the medical officer of Sri. Poly Clinic and Nursing Home, Mysuru City, got admitted respondent No.2 for delivery by referring and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:266 CRL.P No. 1011 of 2018 impersonating her as accused No.2 - the wife of accused No.1 and caused death of child in the womb without permitting it to be born alive, in collusion with accused Nos.1 and 2. On filing final report, the cognizance was taken and now the matter is pending in SC No.46/2017 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya. The petitioner being accused No.3 is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not addressed his arguments inspite of giving sufficient opportunities. Hence, his arguments is taken as nil. Heard Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri. Pramod.R., learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. 5. In view of the contentions urged by the learned counsels for the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?" - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:266 CRL.P No. 1011 of 2018 My answer to the above point is in ‘negative’ for the following: R E A S O N S 6. Respondent No.2 being the victim lodged the first information against accused Nos.1 and 2 making specific allegations for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 376, 420, 504, 506, 114, 419, 315 of IPC. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded and final report came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner being accused No.3 is charged for the offence punishable under Section 315 of IPC. 7. It is contended that accused Nos.1 and 2 got admitted respondent No.2 in the nursing home belonging to this petitioner by impersonating her as accused No.2 - the wife of accused No.1 and there was premature abortion conducted by the petitioner in collusion with the co-accused. As a result of which, she gave birth to a still baby and it is stated that the petitioner has prevented child being born alive. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has produced copy of the admission record maintained in Sri. Polyclinic and Nursing Home, dated 17.09.2013 according to which, one Shanthi W/o Shanker was - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:266 CRL.P No. 1011 of 2018 admitted to the hospital. It is stated that Shanthi is accused No.2 and Shanker is accused No.1. But it is stated that the patient admitted to the hospital was not accused No.2, but it was respondent No.2. In the admission record, the diagnosis is made as 'threatened abortion' and the operation procedure is shown as MTP. It is the contention of respondent no.2 that deliberately accused No.3 got aborted her pregnancy prematurely and baby was not shown to her either alive or dead. When such serious allegations are made, I do not find any reason to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner. No grounds are made out to entertain the petition. 8. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH List No.: 2 Sl No.: 28