JUDGMENT : T.V. NALAWADE, J. 1. The application is filed for the relief of quashing of CR No.375/2018 registered with Gangakhed Police Station, District Parbhani for offence punishable under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sides are heard. 2. The crime is registered on the basis of report given by one Bhagwat Kadam, father of deceased Seema. Seema had come to the house of her parents as she was pregnant and she wanted to have the delivery at the place of her parents. On 31-3-2018 Seema had severe pains and as per the date given of the delivery she was due to deliver child and so Seema was shifted to Government hospital from Gangakhed. At about 8.50 a.m. she was admitted. The duty time of the present applicant who was a Medical Officer of the said hospital was from 8.00 a.m. onwards but he was not present in the hospital. A nurse one Smt. Hatkar available admitted Seema. Seema delivered a female child at about 9.10 a.m. Till that time also the present applicant did not turn up. After some time of the delivery Seema suffered bleeding. When the nurse realised that there were complications, she contacted the present applicant on phone and informed about the complications. The applicant did not turn up till 10.00 a.m. and ultimately at 10.00 a.m. Seema died. It is the contention of the father of the deceased that only due to the absence of the present applicant, who was the medical officer, Seema died. It is contended that he did not turn up on duty and it was his negligence which caused the death of Seema. 3. The applicant has produced photocopies of some record like attendance register etc. It is not disputed by the applicant that on that day he was on duty. It was submitted that on that day he had attended one patient at 8.15 a.m. Though such record is produced there is clear possibility that it is afterthought record. Necessary enquiry was made by the Superintendent and the report shows that the present applicant had not turned up even when he was called by the aforesaid Nurse. There is a record which is sufficient to infer that due to the negligence of the present applicant death of Seema took place. Necessary enquiry was made by the Superintendent and the report shows that the present applicant had not turned up even when he was called by the aforesaid Nurse. There is a record which is sufficient to infer that due to the negligence of the present applicant death of Seema took place. The submission made for the applicant that private doctor had also informed that it was a high risk case as “placenta postrioely low lying” was there. In that case also it can be said that it is the duty of the medical officer to remain present and when it is a case of high risk his presence is a must. The record is sufficient for the present purpose to infer that he was never diligent in discharging his duty and on that day due to his negligence Seema died. There are statements of the staff working there and they also indicate the same thing. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on some observations made by the Apex Court in the case reported as Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab And Another, (2005) 6 SCC 1 . That case was also of medical negligence but it was due to administration of medicine of which knowledge was not possessed by the by doctor. Some guidelines were given by the Apex Court to ascertain negligence. The facts and circumstances of each and every case are always different. In the present case the applicant did not turn up to discharge duty and so the degree of negligence is such that it is not possible to infer at this stage that negligence did not play part in the death of Seema. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the observations by the Apex Court in the case reported as (Jayshree Ujwal Ingole v. State of Maharashtra, (2017) 14 SCC 571 ). In this case the Apex Court has laid down that three tests need to be checked to ascertain negligence like (I) Legal duty to exercise due care on part of the party complained of; (ii) Breach of said duty; (iii) Consequential damage. In the present case all the three tests are satisfied and so this Court holds that it is not possible to give the relief in favour of the applicant. In the result, the application stands dismissed.