THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.PETITION No.13111 OF 2010 ORDER: 1 Petitioner herein, who is the second accused in C.C.No.600 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad registered against the petitioner and others for the offence punishable under section 304- A of IPC, filed this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in the said case. 2 Facts in brief are that second respondent herein lodged a complaint before the learned Magistrate alleging that her husband went to Dr.A.S.V.Narayana Rao (A.1) Cardiologist, Image Hospitals, Hyderabad on 22.04.2002 for check up and the doctor who did preliminary tests on the patient, informed to the second respondent that her husband would be required to conduct angiogram on 23.04.2002 and he has to undergo angioplasty and accordingly conducted operation. It is stated that the petitioner herein administered anaesthesia on the patient when the operation was conducted on him and while undergoing treatment the patient i.e. husband of the second respondent developed jaundice and the condition of the patient was deteriorating. It is alleged that because of the negligence on the part of the treating doctors, the patient died. The learned Magistrate referred the said complaint to Panjagutta police under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. The police registered the same as a case in Cr.No.416 of 2002 under section 304-A of IPC and investigated into and after completion of investigation filed a final report referring the same as lack of evidence. Thereafter, on notice, the complainant filed a protest petition. The learned Magistrate, having recorded the sworn statement of the complainant, took the said complaint into cognizance and numbered the same as C.C.No.600 of 2006. 3 Mr. Md. Saleem, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the accused 1 and 3 in the very same case have approached this court and filed two Criminal Petitions i.e. Crl.P.No.6506 of 2007 and 6368 of 2007 respectively and a learned Judge of this Court by common order dated 28.10.2010, while dismissing the Crl.P.No.6506 of 2007 preferred by the first accused allowed Crl.P.No.6368 of 2007 which was preferred by the doctor – A.3, who on requisition on emergency basis conducted operation on the patient cannot be proceeded against since he has nothing to do with the negligent act done by A.1 and the management of the said hospital - A.4. He further contended that the petitioner herein is only an anaesthetist and is nothing to do with acts done by the other accused. Heard Mr. Srikanth learned counsel for the second respondent. 4 Having heard the counsel on either side and having perused the record and also the common order passed by a learned Judge of this court in Crl.P.No.6506 and 6368 of 2007 dated 28.10.2010, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner herein also in one way or the other stands on the same footing that of the third accused in the said case. The petitioner is only an anaesthetist. His duty is only to administer anaesthesia on the patient during the course of operation done on the patient but nothing else. Hence this court is of the opinion that the case of the petitioner cannot be tagged with that of A.1 and A.4 and he cannot be throttled for the negligent acts done by the other accused and thus continuance of the said proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of court. 5 In the light of the above, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.600 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad are hereby quashed in so far as the petitioner herein is concerned. ___________ Sri T.G.K, J. 29th December 2010 Kvsn