JUDGMENT : PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of F.I.R. bearing no. 0966/2018, registered at Police Station, Frazerpura, District Amravati, against the applicant and one more accused for the offence punishable under Sections 304 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The applicant is a registered Medical Practitioner and carrying her practice at Ram Nagar, Amravati under the name and style as 'Salunke Maternity and Hospital'. Her hospital is also an approved center for termination of pregnancy. 4. The non-applicant no.2 – Vivek Deshmukh, the first informant, lodged a report alleging therein that the death of his wife Vanshika was caused due to the negligence of the applicant – Dr. Sangeeta Salunke and Dr. Wankhede of Getlife Hospital. It is stated that as the first informant and his wife did not want the second child, they approached Dufrin Hospital, Amravati to abort the foetus of Vanshika. The applicant, who was working at Dufrin Hospital, agreed to abort the foetus in her private hospital for Rs.21,000/. Accordingly, Vanshika was admitted on 21/06/2018 in the hospital of the applicant. Next day, procedure for abortion was undertaken. As her condition was critical, she was referred to Getlife Hospital. At Getlife Hospital, it was revealed that during the procedure for abortion, her intestine was damaged, therefore the place of her defecation was shifted. As there was no improvement in her condition, she was taken to Nagpur Medical Hospital where she died on 27/06/2018. The first informant blames the applicant and the surgeon Dr.Wankhede of Getlife Hospital, for the death of his wife. He lodged F.I.R which was registered at Sr. No. 0966/2018, Police Station, Frezerpura, Amravati. The impugned FIR is sought to be quashed in the present application. 5. We have heard Shri F.T.Mirza, learned counsel for the applicant, Smt. S.Haider, learned APP for non-applicant no.1/State and Shri S.S.Randale, learned counsel for non-applicant no.2. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 5. We have heard Shri F.T.Mirza, learned counsel for the applicant, Smt. S.Haider, learned APP for non-applicant no.1/State and Shri S.S.Randale, learned counsel for non-applicant no.2. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [ 2005 (6) SCC 1 ] and submitted that the police authorities without considering the fact that no cognizable offence is made out, registered the impugned F.I.R. It is further submitted that the expected complications during termination of pregnancy were duly explained to the couple. They being well educated and with their informed consent, filled up the MTP Proforma wherein the list of the possible risks and complications were mentioned including injury to the viscera in both English and Marathi languages. It is further submitted that the deceased Vanshika was admitted on 21/06/2018. As the pathological investigations were already done in advance on 19/06/2018, on 22/06/2018 at 10.00 a.m. the MTP was conducted as per the protocol prescribed in the medical science. The patient was fine and without any complaint till 3.00 p.m. in the afternoon. Thereafter, she complained of nausea and pain in her lower abdomen. On medication she reported to be fine but by way of abundant precaution, she was subjected to Ultra Sonography by Dr. Rajul Deshmukh, Radiologist who reported her to be normal. The pathological investigations were also conducted to rule out any infection in the body. 7. It is further submitted that on 23/06/2018, in the morning, she again complained of pain, therefore, Dr. Manoj Nichat, Physician was called, who opined for an additional consultation with Surgeon. Accordingly, Dr. Sarda, General Surgeon was called, who advised to shift the patient to ICU Multi-speciality Hospital as the patient may need surgical exploration. Accordingly, the patient was shifted to Getlife Hospital, Amravati at 9.40 a.m. on 23/06/2018. 8. It is further submitted that the applicant was not having any acquaintance with the deceased Vanshika, neither any enmity to have any intention for causing her death. The police, without following guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jacob Mathew (Supra), registered the impugned F.I.R. for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel pressed to quash the F.I.R. 9. The police, without following guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jacob Mathew (Supra), registered the impugned F.I.R. for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel pressed to quash the F.I.R. 9. The non-applicant no.1/State in its reply submitted that the Investigation Officer after recording statements of witnesses, obtained an opinion from Civil Surgeon, Amravati wherein it revealed that if the deceased would have been operated initially by the applicant properly, the cause of death due to Septicemia could not have occurred. The applicant is therefore responsible for the death of wife of the first informant. 10. The first informant/non-applicant no.2 in his reply denied the contents in the present application and submitted that the unfortunate death of his wife is only because of the wrong treatment given to her by the applicant. The act of the applicant was deliberate and grossly negligent. 11. We have pursued the record and also considered the submissions on behalf of both the parties. At the outset, the F.I.R. is registered for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. For ready reference, Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code is reproduced below: “304. Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or if causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.” 12. The culpable homicide not amounting to murder has been made punishable in the following cases: 1. If the act by which death is caused is done with intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. 2. If the act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. 13. If the act by which death is caused is done with intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. 2. If the act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. 13. In the case of Jacob Mathew (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court while expressing concern about the increase in cases of Doctors (Surgeons and Physicians), being subjected to criminal prosecution, issued certain guidelines. It was observed that the Investigating Officer and the private complainant cannot always be supposed to have knowledge of Medical Science so as to determine whether the act of the medical professionals amounts to rash and negligent act attracting any criminal liability. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the guidelines stated that the Investigation Officer shall before proceeding against the Doctor because of rash and negligent act or ommission, obtain an independent and competent medical opinion preferably from a Doctor in Government Service qualified with bunch of medical practice who can normally be expected to give an impartial and unbiased opinion applying Bolam's test to the facts collected in the investigation. 14. In the instant case, as per guidelines, the Investigation Officer obtained the opinion of the District Civil Surgeon, Amravati. However, it appears that the prosecution has misconstrued the said opinion and tried to proceed against the applicant and the co-accused. 15. We have pursued the said opinion. It appears that the learned Civil Surgeon, as directed, has constituted a technical Committee of 10 experts in Medical Sciences with Civil Surgeon as its Chairman to examine such kind of matters. The said opinion indicates that the said Technical Committee held its meeting on 10/09/2018 and submitted its report concluding thereby that there was no gross negligence on the part of the Doctors who treated the deceased – Vanshika. The said Committee answered all the 22 questions formulated by the Investigation Officer. The report also concludes that the cause of death of Vanshika Deshmukh was due to Septicemia due to perforation peritonitis which was caused during complications occurred during MTP and which is the inherent risk of 0.1% in the surgery. The opinion also indicates that MTP was done after following the due protocol. The report also concludes that the cause of death of Vanshika Deshmukh was due to Septicemia due to perforation peritonitis which was caused during complications occurred during MTP and which is the inherent risk of 0.1% in the surgery. The opinion also indicates that MTP was done after following the due protocol. The complications developed due to perforation in the intestine of the deceased and the possibility of perforation during MTP is always there at 0.1%. It is the inherent risk of the surgery and, therefore, there was no negligence on part of Dr.Salunke, the applicant herein. 16. In view of the aforesaid opinion of the expert Committee having 10 technical experts in medical sciences, in our view it would be an abuse of process of law to proceed against the applicant and the co-accused. Furthermore, the F.I.R. does not reflect the intention of the applicant to cause death or bodily injury which is likely to cause death, nor the knowledge that in all probability the death would be caused, can be attributed to the applicant. None of the ingredients of part 1 and 2 of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code are prima facie present in the present case. 17. Even the offence under Section 304-A is also not attracted in view of the clear-cut opinion of the technical Committee consisting of 10 experts in medical science. There was no negligence much less the gross negligence on the part of the doctors who had dealt with the patient. Whatever complications arose during MTP, as per the opinion, was the inherent risk of the surgery, may be 0.1%, the information about the same was already given to the couple and with their informed consent, the MTP was conducted. The medical papers annexed with petition coupled with the opinion of the expert committee reveal that the complaints from time to time of the patient were tried to be redressed properly and promptly. The intention to cause death or knowledge about probable death of the patient, attracting criminal liability, by no stretch of imagination can be attributed to the applicant or the co-accused Dr. Wankhede. 18. In such circumstances, in our opinion, this is a fit case to quash the F.I.R. lodged against the applicant. 19. In the result, Criminal Application is allowed. F.I.R. No. 0966 of 2018, registered at Police Station, Frazerpura, District Amravati is hereby quashed and set aside. Wankhede. 18. In such circumstances, in our opinion, this is a fit case to quash the F.I.R. lodged against the applicant. 19. In the result, Criminal Application is allowed. F.I.R. No. 0966 of 2018, registered at Police Station, Frazerpura, District Amravati is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in these terms. Criminal Application is disposed of.