THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Petition No. 6654 of 2007 Order: This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.353 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner is the sole accused in the above referred criminal case. She was working as Civil Surgeon, Female Specialist, Government Headquarters Hospital, Machilipatnam. The case of the complainant is that on 11.09.2006 herself and her daughter approached the accused at Government Hospital, Machilipatnam. The accused is also running an unauthorized private nursing home at Ramanaidupet, Machilipatnam. She is the only female Gynecologist at Machilipatnam during the said period. According to the complainant, when they approached the accused on 11.09.2006 the accused directed her to come to her private nursing home on 13.09.2006 evening. Accordingly, the complainant along with her son-in-law and her daughter (LWs.2and 3) approached the accused at her nursing home. The accused is alleged to have demanded Rs.5000/- and accordingly one B. Sreeramulu LW.4 paid the said amount to the accused. Then the accused referred the daughter of the complainant to LW.13 Diagnostic Centre for scanning and report. After perusing the scanning report the accused advised them to come after four or five days. On 18.09.2006 at about 5.30 AM when the daughter of the complainant namely Moka Durga Jyothi was getting pains, she was admitted in the Government Hospital, Machilipatnam, in the special room. The accused, having attended her, again demanded the son-in-law of the complainant and husband of Moka Durga Jyothi, namely M. Srinivasa Prasad, to bring an amount of Rs.5,000/- to attend on his wife at the time of delivery. As he had no funds he could not fulfil the demand of the accused. On 21.09.2006 the accused directed the hospital staff to discharge the daughter of the complainant Moka Durga Jyothi from the hospital. Again on 21.09.2006 at about 4.00 PM Durga Jyothi suffered with abnormal delivery pains and approached the staff nurse LW.7 and mid-wife LW.8. Though Durga Jyothi was suffering with pains the accused did not attend on her. On 22.09.2006 at about 2.30 AM her husband Srinivasa Prasad made a telephone to the accused through his cell phone No9849355745, but there was no response from the accused. Further, the accused abused Srinivasa Prasad for disturbing her during night time. On 22.09.2006 at about 7.00 AM the complainant approached the accused at her house and requested to attend on her daughter. Then the accused demanded Rs.2,000/- to perform the operation and delivery. Though the accused was informed about the health condition of Durga Jyothi by the nurses there was no response from the accused. On 22.09.2006 at about 9.00 AM the complainant and LW.2 Srinivasa Prasad approached the accused and paid Rs.1000/- and requested her to attend on Durga Jyothi. Then the accused told that she would attend at about 10.00 AM, however, the victim Jyothi was getting pains and in spite of the information given by the staff nurses and mid-wife there was no response from the accused. It is alleged that due to non-payment of the amount as demanded by the accused, the accused acted negligently and did not attend on the patient for about 1 ½ hours and at about 11.30 AM when she attended it is informed that the baby died in the womb. Alleging that the baby died due to rash and negligent act of the accused, the complaint has been filed against the accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. The complainant also claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under Section 357 Cr.P.C. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner/accused was not on duty on 21.09.2006 and that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offence. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the baby was deeply asphyxiated with umbilical cord around the neck three times tight and died. It is also submitted that the opinion of the qualified doctor is not obtained in this case. Learned counsel for the first respondent complainant submits that the Superintendent of the hospital was examined by the Magistrate and the said Superintendent has categorically stated that the petitioner is responsible for the death of the baby and that the petitioner intentionally delayed to attend on the patient for non- payment of the demanded bribe amount. The learned Magistrate has examined the complainant and recorded her sworn statement. LW.11 Dr. P. Rama Rao, who is working as District Coordinator, was also examined by the Magistrate. LW.11 opined that due to the delay in attending on the victim by the accused the baby died. A reading of the statements of Dr. P. Rama Rao (LW.11) and Dr. A. Jagadeesh (LW.12) reveal that it cannot be said that the charge sheet allegations are false. Whether the evidence proposed to be adduced by the prosecution would be sufficient to convict the accused or not and whether charge sheet allegations are true or not cannot be gone into in quash proceedings. In the circumstances, it appears that there are no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 15.07.2010 Nsr