JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A for the State. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of an FIR dated 2.10.2011 registered at case crime No. 3440 of 2011, under Sections 269, 308, 328 and 418 IPC, P.S. Baradari, District Bareilly. 2. Briefly allegations in the FIR were that the informant Smt. Sabiha Hamid had gone to the Nursing Home run by the petitioners for the purpose of her delivery. On 4.11.2011, the informant was discharged but she started complaining of great pain and thereafter the petitioners prescribed some medicines but she was again hospitalized between 16.2.2011 and 23.2.2011. Later on, she was refered to another Centre, where it was discovered that the petitioners had left a cotton bundle in her stomach at the time of operation as a result of which the anus pipe had putrefied which she needs to get operated at S.G.P.G.I. Lucknow. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and another, AIR 2005 SC 3180 ; Martin F. D’ Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, AIR 2009 SC 2049 ; Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee, 1957 (2) All ER 118 and Mahadev Prasad Kaushik v. State of U.P, 2009(1) AWC 453, has argued that gross negligence is not disclosed. It is contended that in the said decisions, it has been held that if the accused are properly qualified and if they act in a manner required to provide medical care on the standards of normal doctors, who exercise reasonable skills and during that act if any mis-happening occurs because of some defect in the equipment, the doctor cannot be put to blame. In the present case, the allegations were that during the course of operation, the petitioners have left a cotton bundle in the stomach of the victim causing her great pain which required a subsequent operation. 4. In our view, prima facie this appears to be a case of gross negligence as no doctor who takes reasonable care would allow a piece of cotton to remain in the stomach after an operation. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the FIR does not disclose any prima facie offence against the petitioners. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. —————