JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. By way of the instant revision petition, the petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved of the order dated 1.12.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajsamand in Criminal Regular Case No. 303/2008 whereby, accusation under Section 304A IPC was ordered to be read over to the petitioners and they were directed to be tried for the said offence. 2. Facts in brief are that one Shri Om Prakash lodged a written report on 21.9.2006 before the Additional S.P., Rajsamand alleging that one Smt. Gayatri Devi w/o Shri Ganesh Singh Rajput had been admitted at Manohar Maternity Hospital, Kankroli on 20.9.2006. The condition of the lady deteriorated while being hospitalised. The doctors demanded a huge sum of money for treating the lady and threatened that she would be referred to the higher centre only if a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid. The family members paid up a sum of Rs. 12,000/- to the doctors but proper treatment was not provided to the lady. By that time, her condition had deteriorated precariously. She was referred for treatment at Udaipur at a very late stage, where she passed away. The lady expired because of the negligent treatment of the doctors at the Manohar Maternity Home and their reluctance in timely referring her to the higher center. On this report, an F.I.R. No. 570/2006 was registered at P.S. Rajsamand for the offence under Section 304A IPC. 3. It may be mentioned here that even before registration of the F.I.R., a complaint appears to have been filed upon which the police was called and the statement of Smt. Gayatri was recorded while she was admitted at the M.B.S. Hospital, Udaipur. She stated that she gave birth to male child on 20.9.2006 at about 9:10 AM. The delivery was normal. She insisted with the doctors that she needed the child alive. The doctors told her that they were trying to save the child. The doctors took a sum of Rs. 12,000/- for her treatment and a further sum of Rs. 18,000/- was demanded. She expressed to the doctors that she was not well on which, she was referred to Udaipur and was brought to Janana Hospital in an ambulance. She alleged that the doctors at Kankroli did not provide her proper treatment. 4. The doctors took a sum of Rs. 12,000/- for her treatment and a further sum of Rs. 18,000/- was demanded. She expressed to the doctors that she was not well on which, she was referred to Udaipur and was brought to Janana Hospital in an ambulance. She alleged that the doctors at Kankroli did not provide her proper treatment. 4. It came to light during investigation that the lady gave birth to a male child by a normal delivery. While giving birth, she suffered lacerations on her vaginal walls causing severe haemorage from which she could not recover and passed away. The child was examined medically but no injury was found on its person. However, the child also passed away a little later. Post mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased by the medical board which opined that the cause of death of Smt. Gayatri was haemorhagic shock due to cervico vaginal injuries. 5. Smt. Madhu Devi the mother of the deceased was also examined during investigation. She stated that the doctors at Kankroli took a sum of Rs. 12,000/- for treatment of her daughter. A little later she was informed that the delivery had been performed but the mother's condition was serious. A further sum of Rs. 25,000/- was demanded for her treatment. The doctors were requested that the patient be referred to Udaipur but they delayed the reference and that is why Smt. Gayatri passed away. Dr. Sudha Gandhi, the doctor who treated the deceased at the Janana Hospital, Udaipur, stated that the lady was brought to Udaipur upon being referred from the Manohar Maternity Home, Kankroli. Upon examination, she was in a state of shock. There were tears in vaginal wall which were sutured. Her blood pressure was low. The doctors tried to treat her but she passed away at 1:50 AM on 21.9.2006. The Investigating Officer sought opinion from the medical board regarding the cause of death of Smt. Gayatri. The medical board gave the following opinion :- "In answer to the queries asked by SHO P/S Rajnagar concerned with post mortem of Smt. Gayatri Devi w/o Ganpat Singh After going through available record. (1) Delivery of Deceased occurred by Vaginal route and not by operation (caesarean). Delivery occurred at Manohar Maternity & Nursing Home Kankroli (as per record available). (2) Cervico Vaginal injuries mentioned in post mortem record occurred at Kankroli. (1) Delivery of Deceased occurred by Vaginal route and not by operation (caesarean). Delivery occurred at Manohar Maternity & Nursing Home Kankroli (as per record available). (2) Cervico Vaginal injuries mentioned in post mortem record occurred at Kankroli. (3) Cervico Vaginal injuries mentioned in post mortem report can occur during normal delivery. (4) Haemorrhagic shock due to Cervico vaginal injuries as mentioned in post mortem report can occur during normal delivery without negligence of treating doctor." 6. The Investigating Officer upon conclusion of investigation, roceeded to file a charge-sheet against the accused petitioners being the owners of Manohar Maternity Home for the offence under Section 304A IPC. The learned trial Judge proceeded to read out the accusation of the said offence to the petitioners by the order dated 1.12.2011, being aggrieved whereof, they have approached this Court by way of the instant revision. 7. Shri M.K. Garg learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments and urged that it is not a case of medical negligence by any stretch of imagination :- (1) Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and anr. reported in AIR 2004 SC 4091 , (2) Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and anr. reported in 2005 Cri.L.J. 3710(1), (3) A.S.V. Narayanan Rao v. Ratnamala and anr. reported in AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 605, 8. He contended that the lady gave a birth to child through a normal delivery at the petitioner's nursing home. During this process, she received vaginal tears which is a normal happening in a normal child birth. As per the medical board's report, vaginal tears can be caused in a normal child birth. The tears caused to the deceased were properly sutured up by the doctors. Thus, there was no justification for the trial Court to have read over accusation of the offence under Section 304A IPC to the petitioners. He thus prayed that the revision deserves to be accepted and the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 9. The tears caused to the deceased were properly sutured up by the doctors. Thus, there was no justification for the trial Court to have read over accusation of the offence under Section 304A IPC to the petitioners. He thus prayed that the revision deserves to be accepted and the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 9. Per contra, learned P.P. vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and urged that the petitioners, firstly treated the deceased Smt. Gayatri with negligence and then, after her condition deteriorated and her family members requested that she should be referred to a higher center for treatment, the petitioners paid no heed to their request and delayed the reference resulting into the deceased going into haemorhagic shock. He thus urged that there is no reason to interfere in the order passed by the trial Court which is substantiated from ample material available on record. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. As per the material available on record, the lady was admitted at Manohar Maternity Home, Kankroli being run by the petitioners at 6:00 A.M on 20.9.2006. She gave birth to male child through a normal delivery on that very day where after, her condition seems to have deteriorated. She was referred to the Government Hospital, Udaipur for further management. As per the admission card maintained at the Government Hospital, Udaipur, Smt. Gayatri was admitted at Bhupal Government Hospital on 20.9.2006 at 1:00 P.M. The distance from Kankroli to Udaipur is about 70 kms. and can be covered at the earliest in about 1½ hours. Thus, it is evident that the patient must have been referred from Kankroli much earlier. Consequently, it cannot be said that the petitioners who treated the deceased at Kankroli delayed her reference to the higher center. The medical board, has clearly mentioned in its above quoted opinion, that cervico vaginal injuries and haemorhagic shock as a result thereof, as mentioned in the post mortem report of the deceased, can occur during normal delivery without negligence of the treating doctors. The medical board, has clearly mentioned in its above quoted opinion, that cervico vaginal injuries and haemorhagic shock as a result thereof, as mentioned in the post mortem report of the deceased, can occur during normal delivery without negligence of the treating doctors. If the entire gamut of facts as available on record is tested on the touchstone of the above referred judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme court, this Court is of the firm opinion that it is not a case of medical negligence by the petitioners so as to justify their trial for the offence under Section 304A IPC. The trial Court committed a gross illegality in reading out the accusation for the offence under Section 304A IPC to the petitioners. The impugned order is thus totally illegal and cannot be sustained. 12. Resultantly, the instant revision deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The order dated 1.12.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajsamand and all subsequent proceedings sought to be undertaken thereunder against the petitioners are hereby quashed. Stay petition also stands disposed of. Record be sent back forthwith. Revision allowed.