R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a Lady Doctor and Consultant Gynaecologist attached to a public hospital at Baroda. By this petition she seeks quashing of a private criminal complaint for offences punishable under Secs. 304 (A) 420 and 312 of I. P. C. It is alleged that the petitioner (doctor) caused death of the daughter of the complainant by rash and negligent not of operation for Medical Termination of Pregnancy. It is also alleged that there cheating because no such operation was performed. In the complaint apart from the parents of the deceased other important witnesses named are nurse Saraswatiben Dr. Bachubhai Vaidya and a Doctor of SSG Hospital. According to the complainant the deceased was operated by the petitioner on 17-2-1988 and the complainant was told that the abortion operation was successfully done. She continued in the nursing home for two days and she was again taken in the operation theatre on 19/02/1988 because the complaint of pain had continued. On 20-2-1988 the deceased was discharged from the hospital even though according to the complainant the complaint had continued. On 22-2-1988 the deceased developed acute pain and the abdomen had swolen and she had become unconscious and she was again taken to the nursing home. In the evening at about 4 oclock another Surgeon Dr. Bachubhai Vaidya was called and according to the complainant Dr. Vaidya told him that the case was spoiled and there was no use of his coming. Dr. Vaidya prescribed injections and called for blood and on the next day she was taken in the operation theatre and Dr. Bachubhai had performed caesarean operation and taken out foetus of about three months. She died on 28 in the nursing home. ( 2 ) THE learned Magistrate took cognizance of this complaint only on the say of the complainant. The learned Counsel for the petitioner accused has submitted that at this stage it cannot be said that there is sufficient cause to proceed against the accused because the complainant his no knowledge as to what transpired and what was the cause of death of his daughter. The complainant relics on the evidence of other medical people like Dr. Vaidya another Doctor of SSG Hospital and the nurse Saraswatiben. The complainant relics on the evidence of other medical people like Dr. Vaidya another Doctor of SSG Hospital and the nurse Saraswatiben. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it does happen sometimes that inspite of all medical care results are sometimes not satisfactory or even highly unsatisfactory and the patients or relatives might feel aggrieved and drag the professional people to unnecessary litigation and therefore before issuance of the process duty is cast on the Court to satisfy itself that there is sufficient cause to proceed against the accused before issuing the process. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the complainant the learned Counsel has submitted that the cases of professional negligence are not rare and if such complainant are quashed and thrown out at the threshold the law will never be able to deal with such cases of professional negligence causing death of people who have come for relief and placed their lives in the hands of professional people. ( 4 ) AT the stage of considering a private complaint the learned Magistrate has several options open to him. If he finds that there is no case to proceed he may dismiss the complaint when no offence is disclosed. If he finds that the offence is disclosed and that there is satisfactory material in support of the allegations disclosing the offence he may issue process. But there right be a third category of cases where the allegations in the complaint would disclose offence and it is very likely that complaint would ordinarily disclose the offence because they are drafted by lawyers. ( 5 ) HOWEVER that by itself is not necessary to satisfy the Court that there is sufficient ground for issuing process. Even though necessary averments are made to attract this ingredient of the offence the question which the Court has to consider is whether there is prima facie material in support of such averments. In the present case the crucial material regarding negligence in the course of performance of operation would largely consist of medical evidence of the expert medical evidence of the persons who attended the operation of the patient or the post-mortem report and the medical case papers. In the present case none of these things were before the Court and straightway the process has been issued. It cannot be said that before the Magistrate there was sufficient ground for issuing process. In the present case none of these things were before the Court and straightway the process has been issued. It cannot be said that before the Magistrate there was sufficient ground for issuing process. At the same time it cannot be said that the complaint does not disclose any offence. Therefore when the complaint discloses the offence complaint cannot be quashed. However it is not a sufficient ground to straightway issue process in absence of sufficient material largely the medical evidence. ( 6 ) IN the result the order issuing process is quashed with the direction that the Trial Magistrate shall hold an inquiry into the case under Sec. 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code and after conducting such inquiry and recording such evidence as he thinks necessary he shall pass appropriate orders after considering whether there is sufficient ground to proceed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Petition allowed. .