Hon'ble VYAS, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this revision petition, the petitioner Ashok Kumar S/o Govind Ram has challenged order dated 23.1.2010, whereby, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Srikaranpur framed charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 176 and 201, I.P.C. 3. As per facts of the case, an FIR was filed on 23.9.2008 by Gurdeo Singh in which it was stated that his daughter Rajveer was married to Sarabjeet Singh and, at the time of her marriage, sufficient dowry was given to her by him. But, after marriage, her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law started harassing her and demanded more dowry. It is alleged that they regularly used filthy words. The complainant stated that out of the welock, one daughter and one son were born to his daughter Rajveer, however, her in-laws and her husband regularly demanded dowry. On 16.9.2008, Sarabjeet Singh, husband of his daughter telephoned him that his daughter Rajveer is ill, therefore, he (complainant) may arrange Rs.50,000/- for her treatment. Thereafter, the complainant along with his nephew Balbir Singh went to the hospital but there nobody was admitted in the hospital by his daughter's name, however, thereafter they were informed that she is admitted in hospital at Raisinghnagar, therefore, they went to Raisinghnagar and, at the hospital, the complainant found that his daughter had already expired and cremation was also made without any post mortem. 4. The FIR was filed upon the above complaint made by the complainant and, thereafter, investigation took place and after investigation the police filed challan against Sarabjeet Singh and Sukhvinder Kaur @ Sukho for offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 406, 176 and 201 IPC and challan was filed against the present petitioner Ashok Kumar under Sections 176 and 201 I.P.C. 5. After committal, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Srikaranpur framed charge against the present petitioner for offences u/Secs. 176 and 201 I.P.C. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order impugned dated 23.1.2010 framing charge against the petitioner is illegal because no offence was committed by the petitioner under Sections 176 and 201 I.[P.C., the petitioner is doctor and he is having private hospital at Raisinghnagar where the accused as well as complainant came and admitted the deceased and the petitioner being doctor treated her but upon assurance given by the complainant party and accused he did not inform the police that the patient died during treatment. 7. 7. Further, it is submitted that both complainant and accused agreed to take the deceased for cremation, therefore, there was no question for informing the police by the petitioner; but, after considerable delay, the complainant filed compliant after cremation, therefore, petitioner who is the doctor who treated the deceased cannot be held responsible for any offence. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., in which, he clearly stated that condition of the patient was very serious, therefore, he immediately started treatment of the patient to save her life. However, after death of the patient, the petitioner informed both complainant and accused party to go to government hospital for post mortem and, before that, they should inform the police; but no information was given to the police either by the complainant or the accused party, therefore, if any negligence is there on the part of the complainant and accused party, then, the petitioner being doctor cannot be held responsible for any offence but the police have filed challan against him and, thereafter, charge has been framed against the petitioner for offences under Sections 176 and 201 I.P.C. which is totally against law, therefore, the order impugned framing charge against the petitioner may be quashed. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused record of the case. 10. In my opinion, it is prime duty of a medical practitioner who is running private hospital to inform the police if any patient is brought to his hospital for treatment who has allegedly consumed poison. Further, after death of the patient, it becomes legal duty of the doctor of the nursing home to inform the police that the patient has died during treatment in his hospital; but, here, in this case, the petitioner is trying to defend himself under the lee of excuses advancing the plea that upon assurance given to him by complainant and accused, he did not inform the police. 11. In my considered opinion, it is complete negligence on the part of the petitioner doctor and he admits in his pleadings in this petition that he did not inform the police for the reason that he was assured by the complainant and accused party. 11. In my considered opinion, it is complete negligence on the part of the petitioner doctor and he admits in his pleadings in this petition that he did not inform the police for the reason that he was assured by the complainant and accused party. In this view of the matter, learned trial Court has rightly framed charge against the petitioner for offences under Sections 176 and 201, I.P.C. because nobody can shift legal burden upon any other person. Hence, I see no reason to interfere in this case. 12. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed.