Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.30878 of 2012 ====================================================== Dr. Vijay Kumar Verma, S/O Late Deodhari Prasad, resident of village- Dhaneshwar Ghat, Police Station- Fatuha, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Sudhir Rai, S/O Sri Pradeep Rai, resident of village- Naya Tola, Dedour, P.S- Bakhtiyarpur, Dist- Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== With Criminal Miscellaneous No.14688 of 2012 ====================================================== Dr. Sangita Verma, W/O Vijoy Kr. Verma, R/O Village- Dhaneshwar Ghat, P.S- Fatuha, Dist- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sudhir Rai, S/O Sri Pradeep Rai, resident of village- Naya Tola, Dedour, P.S- Bakhtiyarpur, Dist- Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== With Criminal Miscellaneous No.33083 of 2012 ====================================================== Manorma Kumari @ Manorama Devi, wife of Shri Virchand Patel, resident of village - Sairapar, P.S. Chandi, District - Nalanda .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sudhir Rai, S/O Sri Pradeep Rai, resident of village- Naya Tola, Dedour, P.S- Bakhtiyarpur, Dist- Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL ORDER 2/ 13-12-2012 The Petitioners seek quashing of the entire proceeding including order dated 03.07.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh, in Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30878 of 2012 (2) dt.13-12-2012 2 / 4 2 Case No.168 of 2009 by which cognizance has been taken under [STATUTE] . The case of the Informant is that his daughter was ill on account of which he took his daughter to Govt. Hospital at Bakhtiyarpur. It is alleged that accused persons approached him and told him that if he pays rupees six thousand, they would operate his child. He then paid rupees six thousand to Dr. Sangita Verma and took his daughter to the house of Dr. Birendra Kumar Sinha, where she was operated upon. However, condition of his daughter became worst on account of which she was sent to the Clinic of Dr. Birendra Kumar Sinha, but no doctor attended her there on account of which she died. After due investigation, final report was submitted against Dr. Birendra Kumar Sinha, where allegedly the operation had taken place and Dr. Vijay Kumar Verma. However, three ladies involved in the case including one Doctor and two Nurses were charge-sheeted. Disagreeing with the report of the police, the Court took cognizance against all the accused under [STATUTE] . It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that the case was also filed before the District Consumer Forum, which Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30878 of 2012 (2) dt.13-12-2012 3 / 4 3 constituted a Medical Board, but there was no substantive proof in regard to the death of the deceased in the Govt. Hospital. No paper was produced on behalf of the Informant to substantiate the claim that his daughter had ever been treated /operated by the present Petitioners. On the other hand, counsel for the Informant submits that a clear case of negligence is made out since the Doctor did not attend his daughter as was required and the papers not having been found at the Govt. Hospital did not substantiate the innocence of the Petitioners since there is no allegation that the Informant had ever averred that his daughter had been admitted in the Govt. Hospital. On going through the facts of the case and relying on a decision reported in (2009) 9 SCC 221 (Malay Kumar Ganguly Vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee & Ors.), wherein, the Apex Court had defined the difference between criminal negligence and civil negligence, I am inclined to allow the applications. In view of such, entire proceeding including order dated 03.07.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh, in Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No.168 of 2009 (G.R. No.1120 of 2009) is hereby quashed. However, quashing of criminal proceedings shall Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30878 of 2012 (2) dt.13-12-2012 4 / 4 4 have no bearing on any civil claims laid by the Informant. The applications stand allowed. JA/- (Anjana Prakash, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 304

Statute Text:
Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder, If act by which the death is caused is done with intention of causing death, etc. Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.