IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1845 of 2009 DR.SATYAJIT KUMAR SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the Petitioner: Shri Md. Farooque Ahmad Khan, Advocate For the State : Shri Gauri Shankar Singh, APP For the O.P. No. 2: None ------------ 4/ 23.7.2010 None has appeared on behalf of O.P. No. 2 in spite of notice being issued vide order dated 2.4.2010. The petition seeks the quashing of the prosecution initiated through Complaint Petition No. 2186 C of 2008, on the basis of which an order of summoning dated 23.9.2008 was passed by Shri Jai Prakash Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna directing the petitioner to stand trial for committing offence under sections 420 and 120B of the IPC. Some of facts are admitted that the daughter of the complainant was admitted into the hospital of the petitioner for carrying out kidney transplant after due preparation and investigations. The hospital is known as Dr. Ruban Memorial Hospital situated at West of Gandhi Maidan, Patna. It is alleged that the petitioner was working as a Nephrologist in that hospital and he admitted the daughter of the complainant for the purpose of transplanting kidney and accordingly, the transplant was processed. It further appears that the complainant was made to believe that the petitioner and other doctors were possessed of necessary expertise for transplant of kidney as they had impressed upon the complainant that they had earlier transplanted kidneys of a few patients. Being 2 influenced by impression given by the petitioner to the above effect, the complainant got his daughter admitted in the above hospital. But, lastly, the transplant was not carried out, as a result of which the daughter of the complainant died and that was in spite of the fact that the complainant had to spend many lacs of rupees besides having had to undergo mental and physical torture in that behalf. The contention is that Dr. Ruban’s Hospital was carrying on transplant only on the recommendation and clearance by the committee formed by the Government of Bihar for the above purpose and some part of the expenditure was subsidized by providing grant of rupees one lac fifty thousand per patient. In support of the contention, some documents issued from time to time by different authorities of the Government of Bihar have been annexed which are available on the record of the present case. It further appears from one of the annexures, which is a letter written by the complainant to the Chief Director, Health Services, Government of Bihar, appearing on page 83 of the brief, that a grant of rupees one lac fifty thousand was sanctioned out of Chief Minister’s fund for the transplant of the kidney to the hospital of the petitioner but the Chief Director by his letter no. 867 (18) dated 13.6.2008 had stalled the transplantation and the complainant had made fervent appeal that he should clear the transplant by the hospital, as all formalities including the identification of the donor of the organ had been gone into. It was contended that the hospital was functioning on the recommendation of the committee of the 3 Government of Bihar in selective cases and was carrying out transplantation only after following all formalities required for the purpose and it could not have done it without the permission of the Government. The withdrawal of the permission by a letter is indicated by the complainant himself, was received by the hospital and it was not possible for the petitioner or his hospital to go ahead with kidney transplantation. The attention of the Court was also drawn to a response to letter no. 867(18) dated 13.6.2008 of the Health Director, Government of Bihar who had advised the transplant of the kidney by informing him that the same has been stopped. The reason for stopping the transplant, as may appear from the letter, Annexure 7 appearing at page 87 of the petition, is that the Human Organ Transplant Act which was an Act of Parliament, had not been ratified by the legislative bodies of the State of Bihar and as such, it was felt not desirable by the Health Department to permit the transplant of the organ. Thus, what the court would find from some admitted facts or some facts which could be the real reasons for not transplanting the kidney is that it was not the act of the petitioner as a result of which the kidney could not be transplanted, rather, it was the order of the State Government stalling the transplant of the kidney of the daughter of the complainant and as such the court finds that it is not a case in which the complainant could allege being cheated in a conspiracy. 4 In view of the facts narrated above, I find that the whole prosecution was completely an abuse of the process of the court and the facts alleged when considered in the light of the facts which were already available in connection therewith, did not permit continuance of the prosecution. In that light, the petition succeeds and the prosecution against the petitioner is quashed. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)