Judgment: M.K. Mudgal, J. 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. Applicant/complainant has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 30/07/2013 passed by the Court of 14th Additional Session Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No. 260/2013 affirming the order dated 7/2/2013 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal in unregistered complaint case, whereby the complaint filed by the applicant under Section 378, 420 and120-B of IPC was rejected under Section 203 of Cr. P.C. 3. Facts, in brief of the case, are that when the complainant was having pain in his stomach, he went to the hospital of respondent No. 1 on 5/6/2006 where he was asked to get an X-ray and Sonography, report on the state of his stomach which he did. After that, he was told that he was having stone in his Kidney which can only be removed by operation. After then on 6/6/2006 he was admitted in the hospital and operated upon, on the same day by a doctor in the aforesaid hospital and stitches were removed by the doctor on 21/06/2006. It has been further alleged that though the complainant underwent a major operation, his stomach pain persisted, therefore, he continued to get treatment from respondent No. 1 and 2. Again the applicant/complainant got stomach sonographed and obtained its report, by which he came to know that his Kidney was removed by the doctor mala fidely. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, complaint was filed by the applicant before the trial Court. 4. On perusal of the trial Court's record, it is apparent that applicant/complainant got recorded only his statement under Section 200 of Cr. P.C. on 16/5/2002. No other evidence has been produced on record in support of the allegations made in the complaint, owing to which learned trial Court having considered the evidence, rejected the complaint of the applicant/complainant. The said order was affirmed by learned Court of Session by the impugned order. On perusal of both the orders and record of the trial Court, it becomes clear that no sufficient evidence regarding removal of Kidney has been produced by the complainant on record in support of the allegations made in the complaint. Solitary statement of the complainant is not sufficient for taking cognizance of the alleged offences. On perusal of both the orders and record of the trial Court, it becomes clear that no sufficient evidence regarding removal of Kidney has been produced by the complainant on record in support of the allegations made in the complaint. Solitary statement of the complainant is not sufficient for taking cognizance of the alleged offences. Accordingly, no sufficient ground is found to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. 5. Hence, this petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.