JUDGMENT : P.G.M. PATIL, J. 1. The petitioners herein are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.36/2017 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Basavakalyan, for the offences punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC. The respondent No.2 herein is the de-facto complainant. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader. 3. I have carefully perused the material on record. It is evident from the records that the respondent No.2 lodged a complaint-FIR in crime No.56/2013 against the accused persons for the alleged offence under section 304(A) of IPC. He has alleged in his complaint that the accused were Duty Doctors and they are responsible for the death of his wife Smt.Sunita @ Manikbai who was admitted in the Govt. Hospital and operated on 15.05.2013 by accused No.3 for Tubectomy at Rajeshwar Government Hospital and accused Nos.1 and 2 being the Duty Doctors. As she developed severe pain on 16.05.2013 wherein she was taken for higher treatment to Bidar Institute of Medical Sciences and Teaching Hospital, Bidar, and on the way she died and hence attributed the death due to negligence of the accused Nos.1 to 3, the petitioners herein. After the death of Sunita, her husband filed the complaint on the basis of which respondent police have registered a case in crime No.56/2013 and thereafter charge sheet was filed before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Basavakalyan for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and the case is registered in C.C.No.5/2017. 4. In the above said facts and circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Investigating Officer ought to have considered whether there was any negligence in treating the victim and whether due to not giving treatment to the victim she succumbed to the post operation treatment and in that regard the Investigating Officer has not properly investigated the matter and has not taken second opinion from any other competent doctor or any other expert. 5. Secondly, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even considering that there was negligence on the part of the petitioners, in view of the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2016 (1) SCC Page 594, the sanction to prosecute the doctors is absolutely necessary and the same has not been taken by the police in this regard. 5. Secondly, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even considering that there was negligence on the part of the petitioners, in view of the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2016 (1) SCC Page 594, the sanction to prosecute the doctors is absolutely necessary and the same has not been taken by the police in this regard. Therefore, without going to the merits of this particular case, let me consider the above said two points, whether the same has been done by the police. 6. The learned High Court Government Pleader fairly conceded the Court that, the Investigating Officer has not taken any second opinion prior to lodging the charge sheet against the petitioners. 7. In this background, it is worth to mention here a decision of this Court reported in between Dr. Seema Manohar Gunjal vs. State of Karnataka, (2017) 3 AIRKarR 143 wherein this Court held that: "Section 304 (A) and Section 482 of Cr.P.C.-Medical Negligence-Quashing of proceedings-expert opinion not obtained before filing of charge sheet there was serious procedural irregularity and therefore proceedings are vitiated and quashed with liberty to police" 8. This Court while considering the factual aspects of the said case, relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in between Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab, (2005) AIRSCW 3685, wherein in the said case also, the doctors were prosecuted for alleged negligence and case was registered against them without obtaining any special expert opinion. The Apex Court in the said decision has held as under: "A private complaint may not be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence before this Court in the form of credible opinion given by another competent doctor to support the charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the doctors. The Apex Court in the said decision has held as under: "A private complaint may not be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence before this Court in the form of credible opinion given by another competent doctor to support the charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the doctors. In the course of investigation by the police, the investigating officer should before proceeding against the doctor/accused of rash or negligent act or omission obtain an independent and competent medical opinion preferably in the capacity of doctor in government service, qualified in that branch of medical practice who can normally be expected to give an impartial and unbiased opinion applying the Bolam test to the facts collected in the investigation and drawn inference that a doctor accused of rashness or negligence, may not be arrested in the routine manner simply because charge against him is leveled because unless his arrest is necessary for furthering the investigation or for collecting evidence or unless investigating officer feels satisfied that the doctor proceeded against would not make himself available to face the prosecution unless arrested, the arrest may be withheld." 9. This Court in the case of Dr. Santosh Vyankatesh Kshirasagar Vs. State of Karnataka through New Town Police Station Bidar and another in Criminal Petition No.200161/2018 c/w Criminal Petition No.200091/2018 disposed of on 25.07.2018, relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in between Lalitha Kumari vs. Government of U.P. and others, (2014) AIR SC 187 wherein the Apex Court has observed that, particularly in case of medical negligence the police have to conduct preliminary enquiry before registering the FIR itself. And if, they register a case, they have to take a second opinion from the competent authority as noted in the above said Jacob's case. 10. Applying the above said principles to the present case, it is clear that, Investigating Officer has not given any attention to take any second opinion from any other Government Doctor or any competent authority like Medical Board for the purpose of ascertaining whether due to medical negligence on their part, death of the deceased occurred. Therefore, without taking second opinion or ascertaining expertise opinion for the reason of the death of the victim the police have hurriedly filed the charge sheet before the Court. Therefore, without taking second opinion or ascertaining expertise opinion for the reason of the death of the victim the police have hurriedly filed the charge sheet before the Court. Therefore, in my opinion, the charge sheet filed against the petitioners require to be returned by the Magistrate to the Jurisdictional Police for further appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law. 11. The second point raised by the learned counsel, is also, in my opinion, needs to be adverted to, it is worth to refer a decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners reported in between Manorama Tiwari vs. Surendra R, (2016) 1 SCC 594 wherein, the Apex Court held that: "In the present case, the high Court has erred in law in dismissing the criminal revision filed by the appellants and affirming the order of the Magistrate rejecting the maintainability of the criminal complaint without sanction from the State government. It is a clear case, where the appellants were discharging their public duties, as they were performing surgery on the patient in the government hospital. It is not disputed that, the appellants were the medical officers in the government hospital. As such, the criminal prosecution of the appellants initiated by the complainant is not maintainable without sanction from the State Government." 12. Section 197 of Cr.P.C., of course, mandates obtaining of sanction from the competent authority, before the Magistrate or any Court takes cognizance of any offence of a public servant. Section 197 says that, in case of a person who is employed by the State government in connection with the affairs of the State, in such an eventuality, no Court shall take cognizance of the case, the offence alleged to have been committed by any such person while discharging his duties as public servant without there being a sanction from the competent authority. Therefore, it is a clear mandate of the above said provisions. 13. The Magistrate or the Court even after taking cognizance also, it can look into whether sanction is required to prosecute the accused, or not, by applying the specific provisions, the Court has to draw an inference on the material on record, that the accused persons are public servants and while discharging their duties as a public servant they have committed the offence and the said act or the offence is referable to their discharge of duties. Eventually, the sanction order need not be insisted, if the offence alleged is nowhere connected with the discharge of the duties as public servants, then on the basis of factual aspects of the case, the Court can take appropriate decision, whether the sanction is required in such a case or not. 14. However, so far as this case is concerned, the Apex Court has categorically held that, the doctors who are said to have committed negligence while discharging their duties, while doing the operations or treating the patients, in such an eventuality, if they commit any negligent act, the sanction is an absolute requirement specifically when the alleged offence falls under Section 304-A of IPC. It is made clear, that the observations made by this Court, in this particular case need not be treated as precedent to all the cases where the offences are committed by the public servants, but it all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case, as I have noted, the police have not obtained the sanction order to prosecute the doctors/petitioners herein. Therefore on this ground, charge sheet filed by the police required to be returned to the police for fresh consideration. In the light of the above said observations, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.36/2017 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Basavakalyan for the offence punishable under section 304A of IPC and all further proceedings therein is hereby quashed. However, learned Magistrate is directed to return the charge sheet papers to the respondent police with a direction to abide by the above said two legal requirements and then if advised, to file an appropriate report to the Court, in accordance with law.