Judgment ( 1. ) THIS revision has been filed by the applicant Dr. Madhu Bhatia, (Regd. Practitioner possessing a degree of M. B. B. S. with Diploma in Gynaecology and Obstetrics) running her own Nursing Home in Indore city, against the order dated 5-1-2002 passed by VIIth ADJ in Sessions Trial No. 526/2001. ( 2. ) THE prosecution story as disclosed by the charge-sheet is that the engagement of deceased Babli @ Mamta for marriage was performed with Mukesh. Thereafter, deceased Babli @ Mamta came to the house of her brother-in-law Madanlal and sister Bhuribai at Indore. Accused Mahesh was having visiting terms with the deceased and had sexual intercourse, as a result of which Babli @ Mamta was pregnant. Deceased Mamta was taken to Dr. Rajesh Tripathi for termination of pregnancy by her brother-in-law Madanlal and sister Bhuribai. Dr. Tripathi had given treatment for the termination of pregnancy. ( 3. ) IT is further alleged by the prosecution that pregnancy was terminated by Dr. Tripathi but placenta could not come out and the condition of the patient started deteriorating. Thereafter, Dr. Rajesh Tripathi has contacted Dr. Patidar and Dr. Harpeet Salooja. Both these doctors have referred the patient Babli @ Mamta for further treatment in Nursing Home of the applicant. In the Nursing Home,, the patient was brought in serious condition. Therefore, she was admitted and after obtaining written consent from her brother Shyam and brother-in- law Madanlal, the applicant given the treatment to the patient and after giving the treatment, when her condition again started deteriorating, the patient was immediately referred to M. Y. Hospital (which is a Government Hospital), Indore. While taking the patient at M. Y. Hospital, patient Babli @ Mamta died in the way. She was taken to the M. Y. Hospital about 12. 30 AM. Thereafter, police came to M. Y. Hospital and started investigation. The offences have been registered against Mukesh, Madanlal and Bhuribai under Sections 376, 314/109 and 201, IPC against the applicants. The charge has been framed only for the offence under Section 201, IPC. ( 4. ) COUNSEL for the applicant submitted that even if the complete material in the charge-sheet is accepted, no offence worth punishable under Section 201, IPC causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screening offender, is made out against the present applicant. The charge has been framed only for the offence under Section 201, IPC. ( 4. ) COUNSEL for the applicant submitted that even if the complete material in the charge-sheet is accepted, no offence worth punishable under Section 201, IPC causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screening offender, is made out against the present applicant. He, further submitted that pregnancy was already terminated by Dr. Tripathi and thereafter, the patient was brought by her real brother Shyam and brother-in-law Madanlal and sister Bhuribai at the hospital of the present applicant and was duly referred by two other doctors Dr. Patidar and Dr. Saiooja. ( 5. ) LOOKING to the serious condition of the patient and placenta coming out, the patient was given immediate treatment after obtaining consent from her brother Shyam and brother-in-law Madanlal. necessary operation was done. In the Nursing Home of the applicant, all facilities were available and the applicant is also duly qualified for doing so. There is no iota of evidence in the charge-sheet that the present applicant was knowing that it was a case of illegal termination of pregnancy, so the question of causing disappearance of evidence could not arise. There is no allegation against the applicant that she had given false information to police or anybody to screen the offender. Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment reported in Roshan Lal and Ors. v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1965 SC 1413 ), which describes four important ingredients for making out offence under Section 201, IPC. He has also placed reliance on a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court reported in Ft. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India ( AIR 1989 SC 2039 ). According to this judgment, every injured citizen brought for medical treatment should instantaneously be given medical aid and thereafter procedural criminal law should be allowed to operate. The applicant being a doctor given immediate treatment and thereafter referred the patient to the Government Hospital. She had no intention to disappear the evidence of offence and there is no allegation of giving false information. Therefore, no prima facie case is made out for facing the trial. ( 6. ) ON the other hand, Mr. Girish Desai, Dy. Advocate General contended that the applicant should not have given treatment to her and she was duty bound to call police immediately. Therefore, no prima facie case is made out for facing the trial. ( 6. ) ON the other hand, Mr. Girish Desai, Dy. Advocate General contended that the applicant should not have given treatment to her and she was duty bound to call police immediately. After perusing the material available in the charge-sheet and hearing both the Counsel, this Court is of the view that prima facie no case is made out to put the applicant for trial for the offence under Section 201, IPC. For constituting the offence punishable under Section 201, IPC first requirement is that offence has been committed. Second is that the accused must know or have reason to believe that the offence has been committed. The third is that the accused must either cause any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear or give any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false. Fourthly, the accused must have acted with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. ( 7. ) IN the present case, there is no evidence in the charge-sheet, which may indicate that the applicant was knowing well that pregnancy was terminated illegally. Alongwith the patient, her real brother Shyam and brother-in-law Madanlal and sister Bhuribai were present and they had given consent for the treatment. Looking to the condition of the patient if the doctor has given treatment and thereafter referred the patient for further treatment to Government Hospital, the applicant has not committed any offence. There is no ingredient available in the charge-sheet and the allegation levelled by the prosecution for establishing second ingredient that the accused was knowing or has reason to believe that the offence was committed. Third ingredient that is accused must either cause any evidence of commission of that offence to disappear or give any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false. This ingredient is also not present. The applicant has not given any incorrect or false information to anybody and also did not cause disappearance of evidence of any offence. As per dictum of the Supreme Court (supra), it was the duty of the applicant being a doctor to give patient immediate treatment who was brought in her hospital in serious condition. ( 8. The applicant has not given any incorrect or false information to anybody and also did not cause disappearance of evidence of any offence. As per dictum of the Supreme Court (supra), it was the duty of the applicant being a doctor to give patient immediate treatment who was brought in her hospital in serious condition. ( 8. ) IN view of the aforesaid discussions, no prima facie case worth punishable under Section 201, IPC is made out against the applicant. Therefore, framing of charge for the said offence by the Trial Court, is hereby quashed. ( 9. ) CONSEQUENTLY, this revision petition stands allowed. M. (Cr.) Pet. No. 304/2002 is hereby dismissed as having become infructuous.