ORDER : I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent/party-in-person. 2. The petitioner, who is a doctor by profession has approached this Court by filing this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking a relief of set-aside the order dated 4.2.2014 passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubli in Crl.R.P No.115/2013 and also the order dated 21.09.2013 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubli in C.C. No.307/2012. 3. Brief factual matrix of the case is that the respondent herein has filed a private complaint before the Court below and the Court was referred the complaint to Sub-Urban Police Station, Hubli under Section 156(3) and after due investigation, the police have filed ‘B’ report and the same is questioned by the respondent herein and the Court below after recording the sworn statement of the respondent herein proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioner herein and thereafter regarding framing of charges is concerned for the offences punishable under Sections 304A, 465, 471 of IPC, the Court below heard the matter and passed the order dated 21.09.2013 and came to the conclusion that it is a fit case to frame charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304A, 465, 471 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the order of the lower Court, the present petitioner herein by invoking Section 397 of Cr.P.C. has filed Crl.R.P No.115/2013. The Revisional Court after considering the contention of both the parties, dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved by the orders of both the Courts below, the present petitioner has filed this petition. 4. The grounds urged in this petition, the very order of the Court below coming to the conclusion that it is a fit case to frame charges is illegal, improper and hence, the same is liable to be set-aside. Further contention is that the dead body is not subjected to post-mortem examination and contention that in the case records, it is specifically mentioned that “patient’s attendar refused for postmortem” and in her presence, the respondent herein signed on the case sheet and thereafter, he put the date as 4.1.2008 at 11.45 p.m. These are two grounds seriously urged before both the Courts below and same has not been taken into consideration by both the Courts below and erroneously passed the order. Hence, it is necessary, this Court has to invoke jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set-aside the order impugned and there are no material to proceed with the case against this petitioner in the absence of the post-mortem report and the reasons for medical negligence cannot be ascertained without postmortem report. The other contention is that the allegation was made that the forgery is committed and there is no any forgery as alleged by the complainant. None of the ingredients of Section 465 of IPC (defining the offence Section 463 of IPC are made out, therefore, Section 471 of IPC is also not attracted and with regard to the offence under Section 304A of IPC also, there is no material, in spite of specific contention taken by the petitioner, the trial Court and the Revisional Court failed to consider the same and hence, prayed this Court to set-aside the order impugned. 5. The counsel appearing for the petitioner in his arguments he vehemently contended that first of all, there is no postmortem report before the Court below and the complainant is also an advocate, who is having knowledge of the very purpose of conducting post-mortem and the very complaint is filed after one year, the trial Court ought not to have referred the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to investigate the same. However, investigating officer also filed ‘B’ report before the Court below and the very condition requisite for initiation of the proceedings, there must be a material before the Court with regard to the alleged offence has been committed and Section 191 of Cr.P.C. is also taken into consideration and same is incurable defect. The other contention is that the delivery is normal and during the course of arguments, Notice dated 23.04.2018 is brought to my notice referring the para-10 and contended that the delay has not been explained by the complainant. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Andhra High Court in the case of Dr. P. Malathi Vs. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Andhra High Court in the case of Dr. P. Malathi Vs. The State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh which was decided on 25.06.2014 and the counsel relying upon the discussions made in the said judgment, brought to my notice page No.7, wherein the Andhra High Court referring the judgment of the Supreme Court held that it is clear that the scope of enquiry in a discharge petition is limited whereas the powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are wide but they have to be exercised sparingly. Further, brought to my notice in the said judgment that the Court also discussed with regard to the private complaint was filed 5/6-6-2003 and private complaint is filed in February, 2004. It is also clear from the material on record that in the complaint, no witnesses are cited and as per the record, at the first instance, sworn statements of two persons i.e. complainant and other witness were recorded at the time of taking cognizance. The counsel also brought to my notice page No.9 with regard to Section 304-A of IPC and the Andhra High Court discussed with regard to the plain reading of the above provisions indicates that death must be due to rash or negligent act of the accused persons. So cause of death is the primary point and negligent and rash act is the next point and further brought to my notice page No.11 with regard to the only state of mind which is deserving of punishment is that which demonstrates an intention to cause harm to others, or where there is a deliberate willingness to subject others to the risk of harm. Negligent conduct does not entail an intention to cause harm, but only involves a deliberate act subjecting another to the risk of harm where the actor is aware of the existence of the risk and, nonetheless, proceeds in the fact of the risk. 6. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.636/2017 in the case of Dr.Sou Jayshree Ujwal Ingole Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court referred the judgment in the case of Jacob Mathew Vs. 6. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.636/2017 in the case of Dr.Sou Jayshree Ujwal Ingole Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court referred the judgment in the case of Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab and Another and brought to my notice the principles laid down in the judgment with regard to the word ‘gross’ has not been used in Section 304-A of IPC, yet it is settled that in criminal law negligence or recklessness, to be so held, must be of such a high degree as to be ‘gross’. The expression ‘rash or negligent act’ as occurring in Section 304-A IPC has to be read as qualified by the word ‘grossly’. The counsel relying upon this judgment made efforts to convince this Court with regard to the fact that he contends that in the absence of postmortem report and also any ingredients for the offences alleged against the petitioner, there cannot be framing of charge against the petitioner and it amounts to an abuse of process in the proceedings against the petitioner. 7. Per contra, the respondent in his argument he contends that after perusal of the records, the Court below has come to the conclusion that it is a fit case for trial and thereafter the petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction by invoking Section 397 of Cr.P.C. and filed the revision petition before the Revisional court and the Revisional Court also considering the material on record, was also pleased to dismiss the revision petition. Being aggrieved by the order, this petitioner has filed Crl.Pet.No.7863/2012 and the same was withdrawn and in the present petition, the petitioner did not mention anything about filing of the earlier petition and the same has been suppressed and the conduct of the petitioner has to be taken note of it. Being aggrieved by the order, this petitioner has filed Crl.Pet.No.7863/2012 and the same was withdrawn and in the present petition, the petitioner did not mention anything about filing of the earlier petition and the same has been suppressed and the conduct of the petitioner has to be taken note of it. The other contention is that the very doctor was treating the respondent’s wife when she became pregnant and only at the advice of the very same doctor his wife was admitted to the hospital for delivery and the petitioner herself gave injection for labour pain and thereafter she was shifted to labour ward and his wife delivered the baby at 7.30 p.m. and after giving injection, this petitioner left the hospital and she did not turn up and only during the labour pain the nurses have taken care of his wife and after the delivery at around 8.30 p.m. the respondent’s wife shifted to the room and when the proposed bleeding was there in spite of informing the nurses, this petitioner did not come to the hospital and only came at around 11.00 p.m. and almost at that time his wife was in death bed and the petitioner came and attended at 11.00 p.m. and at around 11.30 p.m. it was declared as she is dead and in spite of the death was occurred in the hospital and his wife was in the hospital and already she was admitted to deliver the baby, in order to suppress the truth with regard to the cause of death the respondent herein did not submit the body for postmortem examination and instead of that created forged signature of the complainant saying that the attendar of the patient did not give consent and refused to send the body for the postmortem examination and given the body to the complainant and his family and hence the private complaint is filed making the allegation with regard to the medical negligence and also with regard to the forging of the signature. It is further contended that the very forged document is also subjected to handwriting expert in the other proceedings and the report has revealed that the signature of the complainant is forged and now the petitioner contend that there are no material before the Court to proceed against the petitioner. 8. It is further contended that the very forged document is also subjected to handwriting expert in the other proceedings and the report has revealed that the signature of the complainant is forged and now the petitioner contend that there are no material before the Court to proceed against the petitioner. 8. In support of his contention, the respondent has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2002 CLJ 90 in the case of Rajinder Prasad Vs. Bashir and Others with regard to the maintainability of this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the said judgment, it is held that petition invoking inherent powers not maintainable, when earlier revision petition filed under Section 397 seeking same relief has been dismissed as not pressed. More so, when no special circumstances are made out. On perusal of the factual aspects is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said judgment also discussed with regard to the object of criminal trial is to render public justice and to assure punishment to the criminals keeping in view that the trial is concluded expeditiously. Delaying tactics or protracting the commencement or conclusion of the criminal trial are required to be curbed effectively, lest the interest of public justice may suffer. Moreover, when no special circumstances were spelt out in the subsequent application for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 and the same cannot be considered. 9. The respondent also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2002 CLJ 2731 in the case of M/s. C.E.I. Consultancy and Another Vs. M/s. Modi World Infotech and Another, wherein it is held with regard to Sections 482 and 397(3) exercising inherent jurisdiction, invocation of petitioner availed remedy of revision and lost case before Revisional Court, petitioner not able to establish that orders passed by Revisional court is either erroneous or unsustainable. Petitioners cannot question said order in High Court under Section 482. The respondent also relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2011 (1) KCCR 233 in the case of Raufsab Vs. State of Karnataka with regard to the limits point is concerned, since the petitioner has raised an issue that the complaint is filed almost after one year. Petitioners cannot question said order in High Court under Section 482. The respondent also relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2011 (1) KCCR 233 in the case of Raufsab Vs. State of Karnataka with regard to the limits point is concerned, since the petitioner has raised an issue that the complaint is filed almost after one year. This Court also considering Sections 468 and 473 with regard to the time barred complaint and condonation of delay is concerned, the Court has observed whether complaint should be filed within time prescribed or whether cognizance is to be taken within time fixed. Offences under the Electricity Act complaint filed immediately thereupon charge sheet filed after four years time limit for the offences three years quashing sought. In the said judgment it is held that the date for computing the period of limitation is the date of filing of the complaint and not the date when the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and relying upon this judgment, he contends that the offence is punishable with punishment of two years and Section 468 of Cr.P.C. prescribe the period as three years and hence on that ground the petition is not maintainable. 10. Having heard the arguments of the petitioner’s counsel and the respondent, this Court has to examine whether this Court can exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order passed by the lower Court with regard to framing of charge and also whether the order of the Revisional Court is erroneous or unsustainable. 11. Having considered the contentions raised by both the petitioner and the respondent, admittedly the private complaint is filed before the Court below and thereafter the matter has been referred to the concerned police under Section 156-3 of Cr.P.C. and the I.O. has not filed the ‘B’ report and the same is challenged and thereafter sworn statement of the respondent herein was recorded and thereafter considering the material, passed the order stating that it is a fit case to proceed against the petitioner and the Revisional Court also confirmed the said order. 12. The main contention of the petitioner before this Court is that there is no any postmortem report before the Court with regard to the cause of death and in the absence of the postmortem report, the criminal proceedings cannot be initiated against the petitioner. 12. The main contention of the petitioner before this Court is that there is no any postmortem report before the Court with regard to the cause of death and in the absence of the postmortem report, the criminal proceedings cannot be initiated against the petitioner. The other contention is that the complaint is filed almost after one year and not immediately after the death and hence there cannot be proceedings against the petitioner. 13. Per contra, the contention of the respondent is that the wife of the respondent was in the custody of the petitioner since she was already admitted to the hospital for delivery on the advice of the petitioner herself and when the deceased was in her custody, in order to know the cause of death ought to have been submitted the body for postmortem examination but instead had gone to the extent of forging the signature of this respondent when he did not give consent. 14. On perusal of the contentions of both the petitioner and the respondent, the question involved in this matter is not only with regard to the medical negligence but also with regard to forging of the signature of the complainant herein and all these are the questions of fact and in the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. all these questions of fact and also defence cannot be taken. Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not a rule and the same is an exception and while exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court cannot conduct a mini trial. The Hon’ble Apex Court also in several judgments even with regard to the framing of charge is concerned, has categorically held that mini trial cannot be conducted while considering and framing of charge only but the Courts have to look in the material available on record and even strong suspicion is enough to proceed with the case. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2000 CLJ 944 discussed with regard to Sections 397, 227 and 228 quashment of charge by appreciating materials produced by prosecution at stage of farming charge not justified at the stage of framing charge the trial Court is not required to marshal materials on record but only has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient materials against accused. The Hon’ble Apex Court also in the judgment reported in AIR 2005 SC 359 has held that while framing of charge, materials/document filed by the accused cannot be considered at that stage, material produced by the prosecution alone is to be considered depriving accused to produce material of sterling quality at stage framing charge not violative of Articles 21 and 14 since roving/fishing inquiry and mini trial at stage of framing charge is not permissible, expression ‘record of case’ and ‘hearing of submissions of accused’ occurring in Section 227 and also discussed with regard to the meaning is concerned. 15. This Court also in the judgment in Crl.Pet.Nos.269 and 355 of 2000 in the case of K. Shivaram Shetty Vs. State by Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) Anti Corporation Bureau, wherein it is held that whether there are sufficient grounds made out by the prosecution to proceed to frame charge against the accused persons and to proceed with the case only but Court has to satisfy with regard to whether there are prima facie material to proceed with the case. The Hon’ble Apex Court also in the judgment reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398 in the case of P.Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala and Another discussed with regard to discharge petition of accused and with regard to the scope and object of Section 227 and also held that at the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In other words, the sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him. The Hon’ble Apex Court also in the judgment reported in (2008) 10 SCC 681 in the case of Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Private Limited Vs. Sanjay Choudhary and Others reiterated the scope of Sections 227, 239, 245 and 482 with regard to framing of charge is concerned and held that strong suspicion for commission of offence and accused’s involvement was sufficient for framing of charges, at that stage, there was no necessity of formulating opinion about prospects of conviction. Sanjay Choudhary and Others reiterated the scope of Sections 227, 239, 245 and 482 with regard to framing of charge is concerned and held that strong suspicion for commission of offence and accused’s involvement was sufficient for framing of charges, at that stage, there was no necessity of formulating opinion about prospects of conviction. The Hon’ble Apex Court also in the judgment reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Another while discussing with regard to scope of Section 228 of Cr.P.C. held that Court at Section 228 Cr.P.C. stage is not concerned with proof but merely strong suspicion that accused has committed offence, final test of guilt is not to be applied at stage of framing of charge. 16. For having taken note of the principles laid down in the judgments referred by the petitioner’s counsel and also the respondent and also the principles which are laid down in the judgments referred by this Court also, it is clear that in order to proceed with the proceedings the Court has to look into the prima facie case is made out or not and also at the same time the Court has to keep in mind whether it amounts to abuse of process or it amounts to miscarriage of justice and only keeping these principles in mind to consider the matter. Now coming to the factual aspects of this case is concerned, the allegation is that the petitioner though got admitted the wife of the respondent herein and gave injection for labour pain, the petitioner left the hospital and throughout even during the period of delivery also the petitioner was not in the hospital and the allegation is that she came to hospital at 11.00 p.m. that too when the wife of the respondent herein was in critical stage and declared that she is no more at 11.30 p.m. and apart from that the allegation is not only the medical negligence but also an allegation of creating forged document and gone to the extent of forging the signature of the respondent herein and also contends that the report regarding forgery of the signature and also the petitioner herein also succeeded both in the consumer forum and also before the Karnataka Medical Council and also the petitioner also did not dispute the fact that the medical council also warned the petitioner and apart from that compensation was also awarded by the National Consumer Forum and having taken note of the factual aspects of the case not only an allegation of medical negligence is made but also the serious offence of forgery is also attributed against the petitioner and all these aspects have to be gone into during the trial and while exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be looked into. Only with regard to framing of charge, the Court has to take whether there is any prima facie material or not and the Hon’ble Apex Court held that at the time of proceeding with the case the Court cannot conduct a mini trial and also could not look into the material available whether the case ended in conviction or acquittal and only at the stage of framing of charge, even a strong suspicion is enough to proceed against the petitioner. 17. 17. For having taken note of the settled principles of law and also the other contentions of the respondent that the petition is not maintainable under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. referring the judgment, wherein it is categorically held that only in the case if either of the Courts have come to the erroneous conclusion or the very order is unsustainable then the petitioner can question the said order and hence the contention of the respondent that the petition is not maintainable cannot be accepted. The other contention that there are no material with regard to the proceedings against the petitioner that there are no prima facie case and postmortem report and also sending the body for the postmortem and this is also the question which has to be answered by the trial court only after proceeding with the matter. Hence, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and I do not find any reasons to interfere with the order of the lower Court and while coming to the conclusion the lower Court held that it is a fit case to proceed against the petitioner and on perusal of the entire order, detail discussion is made with regard to the consequences and also the material available before the Court and the Revisional Court also considered the same and nothing suggests to interfere with the order of the Court below and also the order of the Revisional Court and hence, I do not find any merits in the petition to set-aside the order of the lower Court as well as the order of the Revisional Court. 18. In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. The records reveal that the complaint bearing P.C.No.1/2009 is filed in the year 2009 and almost a decade has been lapsed and it is still in the stage of framing of charge and it is learnt that yesterday charge has been framed, and hence, it is a fit case to give direction to the lower Court to dispose of the matter within one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Both the parties are directed to assist the lower Court in disposal of the case. Both the parties are directed to assist the lower Court in disposal of the case. In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration, hence, they are also disposed of.