KBP 1 cr.wp.1742-10.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1742 OF 2010 Dr.Megha Mane ..Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra and anr. ..Respondents -- Mr.S.B.Shetty, for the petitioner. Ms.M.M.Deshmukh, APP for respondent no.1 – State. Mr.V.V.Purwant, for respondent no.2. Mr.H.B.Masugade, A.S.I., Pawai Police Station, Mumbai is present. -- CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 29 th NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] This petition is for quashing of the criminal case pending with KBP 2 cr.wp.1742-10.odt the Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway Mobile Court, Andheri (East), Mumbai bearing case No.414/PS/2008 in respect of C.R.No.163 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. On the basis of F.I.R., investigation has been completed by the Investigating Officer who, in turn, has filed Charge Sheet before the concerned Court naming the petitioner and others as accused in the commission of alleged offence. As regards the petitioner, it is alleged that she was negligent in calling Dr.Shalini Surendra Suralkar, which resulted in death of Smt.Shobha Laxman Khanvilkar. On the basis of the said allegation, the petitioner is prosecuted with offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code along with other accused. 3] The argument before us is that, the expert has opined that the petitioner is not responsible for the death of said Shobha Laxman Khanvilkar. It is further submitted that there is no material, on the basis of which, the allegations referred to in the Charge Sheet against the petitioner can be substantiated by the prosecution. It is the argument of the petitioner that the petitioner has just successfully completed the medical course and started practicing as alopathic KBP 3 cr.wp.1742-10.odt Doctor. 4] The allegations in the Charge Sheet are founded on the evidence collected during the investigation. The evidence collected during the investigation will have to be proved during the trial and the arguments, which are now canvassed before this Court on behalf of the petitioner, are matter of defence available to the petitioner during the trial. No ground for quashing of criminal case is made out in the fact situation of the present case. 5] Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade us that merely because of the alleged negligence in discharge of the duty, that cannot be the basis to convict the petitioner under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. He has placed reliance on an unreported decision in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and anr. decided on 24 th July, 1998 by the Supreme Court of India. We are not inclined to rely on the computer printed copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as authentic copy of the judgment. The same does not even mention the Coram of the Court. Besides, the opinion recorded KBP 4 cr.wp.1742-10.odt by the Supreme Court in that case is in the fact situation of the case before it. 6] In the circumstances, we are inclined to dismissed this petition. Ordered accordingly. [R.G.KETKAR, J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.]