ORDER: Heard both sides. 2. The petitioners seek to call for the records in C.C.No.332 of 2001 on the file of Judicial Magistrate 1. Poonamalle and to quash the same. 3. The petitioners are the respondents in the private complaint in C.C.No.332 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate I, Poonamalle wherein the respondent/complainant filed a private complaint against the petitioners herein for the alleged offences punishable under Secs.336, 406, 420 read with 34, I.P.C. stating that the respondent’s wife became pregnant and delivered a girl baby inspite of the Tubectomy operation conducted by the petitioners on 6.12.2000, which according to the respondent/complainant was conducted negligently. It appears that the complainant sent a lawyer’s notice on 14.4.2001, pursuant to which the complainant also made a claim as follows: (1) Expenses incurred before and after the delivery - Rs. 75,000 (2) Expenses for bringing up and educating the baby - Rs. 3,00,000 (3) Compensation for mental agony - Rs. 2,00,000 (4) Expenses incurred for tubectomy operation - Rs. 6,500 Total - -------------- Rs. 5,81,500 -------------- 3. Mr.S. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused invited my attention to the reply notice dated 8.5.2001 issued on behalf of the petitioners to the legal notice dated 14.4.2001 of the respondent/complainant. In the said reply notice dated 8.5.2001, the petitioners/accused have not disputed the fact that they undertook Tubectomy operation to the respondent’s wife on 6.12.2000, but, however strongly dispute any negligence or carelessness in performing the Tubectomy operation on respondent’s wife. 3.2. According to Mr.S. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, even the allegation in the complaint does not constitute the offences referred to in the complaint and therefore there is no justification for the petitioners/accused to face the trial and further proceedings in C.C.No.332 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Poonamallee. 3.3 Mr.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners also invited my attention to the orders of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 27.62000 in O.P.No.87 of 2000 wherein it is held that the Tubectomy operations are not 100% successful and there will be some failures in such operations in the normal run of things, in the sense of pregnancy occurring even subsequent to such operations. 4. 4. Per contra, Mr.V. Thillaisamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant submits that due to the negligence on the part of the petitioners/accused in conducting the tubectomy operation, the respondent’s wife had given birth to a girl baby. 5. I have given careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. In this regard, I am obliged to refer Sec. 336 of Indian Penal code which reads as follows: Sec. 336 I.P.C: Act endangering life or personal safety of others: Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees, or with both." 7. In my considered opinion, assuming the averments stated in the complaint are proved, I do not think that the petitioners/accused have committed any rash and negligent act attracting Sec. 336 of Indian Penal Code as fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent himself inasmuch as the respondent and his wife had given a consent to the operation which admittedly includes risk factor. 8. I am also satisfied that even the complaint itself does not constitute the offence punishable under Sec.420,I.P.C. which reads as follows: Sec. 420 I.P. C.: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property: Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine". 9. I am also obliged to refer to the decision in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by order dated 27.6.2000 in O.P. No.87 of 2000 which arose in identical circumstances which reads as follows: "The factors stated as above as being culled out from the averments made in the complaint do not at all prima facie point out that there was any sort of a negligence on the part of the opposite parties in the performance of the tubectomy operation. This apart, the infallible medical opinion is that since the disconnected ends of the fallopian tube are close to each other, there is chance for re-union of these ends resulting in pregnancy, notwithstanding the fact there was no negligence in the performance of the tubectomy operation. It is to be taken note of here that the tubectomy operations are not 100% successful and there will be some failures in such operations in the normal run of things, in the sense of pregnancy occurring even. 10. Therefore, I am satisfied that the complaint does not constitute any offence attracting Secs.336 and 420,I.P.C. and therefore the above complaint itself is liable to be quashed in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice. 11. Hence the above O.Ps. are allowed and the complaint in C.C.No.332 of 2001 stands quashed. Consequently, connected Cr.M.Ps. are closed.