JUDGMENT 1. No one appears on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2. 2. The Petitioner seeks quashing of the entire proceeding including the order of cognizance dated 31.03.2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur in Complaint Case No. 449(C)/2005 under Sections 327, 328, 329, 386, 420 and 468 IPC. 3. The case of the Complainant is that on 28.11.2004 when he came to the clinic of the Petitioner for treatment of his wife she was examined by the Petitioner who prescribed for some tests. On 30.11.2004 the Complainant went to clinic with the reports when she was advised to remove the uterus. He then paid fees for the operation and she removed the uterus successfully. His wife was discharged on 07.12.2004 but the condition did not improve after such operation. Once again she was admitted in the hospital and the Petitioner directed him to arrange blood for transfusion. His wife then became serious but after intensive treatment at PMCH she was discharged from there. The Complainant alleged that the Petitioner had cut the intestine of his wife on account of which the tube entered in the abdomen resulting in deterioration of her health. 4. It has been submitted that it is the Complainant’s own admission that the operation was successfully performed whereafter his wife had been discharged evidently the complications which arose thereafter did not happen because of operation of the Petitioner. 5. In view of this material, even accepting the allegations as true in the Complaint Petition no criminal offence would be made out. Hence, I am inclined to allow the application and quash the entire proceeding including the order of cognizance dated 31.03.2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur in Complaint Case No. 449(C)/2005.