Jaipur:TheRajasthan High Courtrecently denied granting relief to a doctor, who filed a plea seeking to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings in a case ofmedical negligenceand cheating. While considering the matter, the Single-Judge bench of Justice Anand Sharma held that the prosecution was valid and the investigating agency was not barred from conducting further probe and filing a charge sheet even after submitting a negative final report under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Court observed that the subsequent prosecution for medical negligence was rightly initiated, as it was supported by expert medical opinion, thereby complying with the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab The doctor was booked for medical negligence during the treatment of the complainant's daughter-in-law for her first pregnancy. She was undergoing treatment for the pregnancy under the accused doctor's supervision at a Jaipur-based hospital. Back in January 2007, when the patient was admitted to the hospital, the doctor had assured the complainant of a normal delivery. However, allegedly, the treating doctor left for Ajmer the next day, leaving the patient in the hands of unskilled employees. Later, the child died due to the umbilical cord being wrapped around his neck. It was alleged by the complainant that the newborn child died only due to the grave medical negligence of the accused doctor and the hospital employees, which could have been saved by a skilled medical expert. Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered, and after the initial investigation, the police authorities submitted a negative final report on 14-12-2007, as no cognizable offence was found to be proved against the accused. Following this, the investigating officer filed an application mentioning that after conducting further investigation, a decision was taken to file a charge sheet in the matter. Accordingly, permission was sought to return the file/case diary for filing the charge sheet. The Trial Court permitted this, and consequently, a charge sheet was filed and the Trial Court took cognisance of the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 420 of the IPC and issued process against the accused. Against the order framing charges, the accused filed a criminal revision petition, which was dismissed by the Revisional Court. Thereafter, the accused doctor approached the HC bench seeking relief. While considering the matter, the HC bench observed that the first question that required consideration was whether, after filing the negative final report, and without there being any protest petition by the complainant, the trial court had the power to return the file/negative final report for the purpose of filing a charge sheet against the accused or not. Examining Sections 173(3) and 173(8) of the CrPC, the HC bench held that a bare perusal of Section 173(8) of the CrPC specified that the investigating agency is not precluded from conducting further investigation despite submitting a final report and any other evidence found can be filed before the Magistrate with a further report. "As per Section 173(3) Cr.P.C., the superior officer of police, pending the orders of the Magistrate, can direct officer-incharge of the police station to make further investigation and Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. specifies that despite submitting a final report, the investigating agency cannot be precluded from conducting further investigation and in case any further evidence is found, the same can be filed before the Magistrate with the further report,"noted the bench. Referring to the judgment in the case of Ramachandran v. R. Udhayakumar, it was observed by the bench that the Supreme Court had held in this case that even if a negative final report was forwarded to the Magistrate, there is no bar in CrPC on further investigation of the matter and since the decision to further investigate the matter was taken by the investigating agency itself, there was no requirement for order of the Magistrate. At this outset, the HC bench observed,"Thus, in view of above, it is clear that in the present case also the trial court has committed no mistake in returning the negative final report to the investigating agency and to allow filing of the charge sheet on discovery of new evidence during further investigation. Such process adopted either by the investigating agency or by the trial court is neither erroneous, nor illegal." While dealing with the accused's submission that the FIR did not contain any allegations of medical negligence or of cheating, the Court noted that Thereafter, the Court dealt with the doctor's argument that not obtaining the report of a medical expert was in contravention of the guidelines set out by the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab. Referring to the concerned judgment, the HC bench observed, Accordingly, the court concluded that since was chargesheet was filed based on the reports by the competent medical experts/bodies, the prosecution had complied with the guidelines laid down in the case of Jacob Mathew. "This Court is conscious of the settled legal position that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised with great caution and only in exceptional circumstances, where the material on record clearly discloses an abuse of the process of law or a grave miscarriage of justice resulting from failure to adhere to due process either by the investigating agency or by the concerned court. However, upon a careful examination of the entire record, this Court does not find any such illegality, irregularity or perversity warranting interference in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed," observed the bench,while dismissing the plea. "However, it is made clear that this Court has not made any comments so as to affect the trial of the case against the petitioner and the observations made by this Court are confined to the scope of exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and not for either influencing or affecting the trial of the case,"it clarified. To view the order, click on the link below: https://.in/pdf_upload/rajasthan-hc-306884.pdf Also Read: No Doctor would risk Reputation, Professional, Economic Stability by engaging in Medical Negligence: HC