AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr Mitra appears for the petitioner and Mr Ganguly along with Mr Sen appears for the State. A report submitted on behalf of the State is taken on
record.
The records of the case reveal that, on the basis of an application under section 156(3) CrPC and a direction passed by learned SDJM, Siliguri, the
present case being Siliguri P.S. Case No.319 dated July 10, 1996 under sections 304/201/34 IPC was registered for investigation.
The crux of the allegations, which reflects from the petition, is as follows. The wife of the complainant (the second opposite party) was undergoing
treatment under one Dr. A.K. Basu at his clinic and had been taking medicines as per prescriptions and advice for a considerable period of time. On
or about June 25, 1996, after consideration of the medical reports, the said doctor expressed that the wife of the complainant and her baby in the
womb were completely fit and fine. On June 26, 1996, the wife of the complainant was admitted under the said doctor at the said clinic. However,
during stay in the clinic, the patient's (wife of the complainant) condition deteriorated. On July 3, 1996, Dr Basu intended to conduct operation for
delivery of the baby and the deceased/patient was taken to operation theatre for the said purpose. It is stated that the petitioner was an anaesthetist
who was there in the operation theatre. After long lapse of time at operation theatre, Dr Basu came out and reported that the baby has already
expired and that he was trying best for survival of Bani Sarkar/patient/deceased. The complainant was suspicious regarding conduct of both the
doctors. The complainant alleges that he had gone to the IC, Siliguri, but that he got no remedy and was asked to approach the court. The complainant
alleged that he was forced to cremate the deceased under pressure and the baby was also buried, and during this stage the brother of Dr Basu
actively participated.
The present revisional application is restricted to Dr Chandana Mondal who happened to be the anaesthetist. From the four corners of the application
under section 156(3) CrPC, I do not find any overt act, which has been alleged against the present petitioner who happens to be a doctor, to ask her to
face the investigation after 25 years. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in respect of the case involving doctors in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab
& Anr. - (2005) 6 SCC 1 - specifically observed that prior to registration of any police case or FIR, there must be an independent enquiry/assessment
conducted by a board of doctors for assessing whether any criminal case has been made out against the doctors.
Having regard to the fact that almost 25 years have passed, no overt act of the present petitioner is reflected in the application under section 156(3)
CrPC which is the genesis of the FIR as also non-compliance of the law settled by the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew's case, I am of the view that
further continuance of the proceedings in the interest of justice would be futile at this belated stage.
Accordingly, all further proceedings arising out of Siliguri P.S. Case No.319 dated July 10, 1996 corresponding to G.R. Case No.642 of 1996 is hereby
quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned.
CRR No.1954 of 1996 is accordingly allowed and all connected applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
All parties are to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court.