IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12416 of 2009 DR. LALIT KUMAR SINGH . Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR . For the Petitioner: Bindhychal Singh,Adv. Ram Vinod Singh, Adv. For the State : Rajendranath Jha, Adv. ----------- 3/ 08/04/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of O.P. No.2 despite having entered appearance when the matter is called out. The petitioner, who is a qualified registered medical practitioner, is aggrieved by the order of cognizance dated 12.2.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamui in complaint case No. C- 789/06 under Section-336 of Indian Penal Code. Section-336 of Indian Penal Code makes it an offence to commit an act so rashly or negligently so as to endanger human life or personal safety of others. In context of rashness and negligence on part of the medical practitioner reliance has been placed on 2005(4) P.L.J.R. (S.C.) 213 (Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab & Anr.), more particularly paragraph-18 holding that a professional may be liable for negligence when he was not possessed with the requisite skill which he professed to possess or did not 2 exercise reasonable competence in the given case considering the skill which he possessed. Referring to the allegations it is submitted that the complainant himself acknowledges that the petitioner is a qualified medical practitioner who treated him and then referred him to a specialist. There is no description of the nature of the illness, the treatment given by the petitioner and of the ill effect it allegedly had. There is no statement of the nature of the treatment given by the other specialist when he was referred to the Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna. The complaint is again lacking in further details of the manner in which allegedly wrong treatment was given in context of the nature of the ailment which is completely wanting and how it resulted in the complainant allegedly becoming physically handicapped, what was the medical material to connect the petitioner referring the complainant to specialist and the handicap resulting from this reference. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this context rightly relies upon paragraphs-27, 29 and 30 of the judgement in the case of Jacob Mathew. The Supreme Court in paragraph-54 in the aforesaid case has held: 3 “…. ..A private complaint may not be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence before the Court in the form of a credible opinion given by another competent doctor to support the charge of rashness or negligence on part of the accused doctor… ...” It has already been noticed above that the complaint is extremely vague and it is not supported by any medical expert report of the nature of the treatment allegedly given by the petitioner. The order of cognizance states that “ The doctor summoned for evidence does not appear to depose. The medicine given reacted which caused bodily injury.” This was evidence of negligence. There are no details in the allegations of the nature of ailment, treatment done, the nature of reaction that allegedly took place, the nature of the medicine administered and materials to consider the medical evidence of proven case of reaction in that kind of medicine precautions required and allegedly not taken, are all wanting in the allegations. The Court is satisfied that the allegations are more in the nature of a roving allegation insufficient to expose the petitioner to the rigours of a criminal trial. 4 The entire proceeding in Complaint Case No.C-789/2006 pending before Sri Md. A. Karim, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamui is quashed. The application is allowed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)