ORDER : The accused is aggrieved of the order dated 15.07.2016 by which her petition for discharge in G.R. Case No. 452 of 2005 was declined. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the District President of Bhartiya Janta Party made a complaint to Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical, Officer, Sadar Hospital, Chatra that the accused was involved in illegal abortions and Patia Devi wife of Anil Soren died in her clinic. A report in the daily newspaper was published on 22.02.2005 whereafter the Deputy Superintendent, Incharge, Sadar Hospital, Chatra conducted an enquiry. In the report submitted by him the following deficiencies/irregularities were found : i. Mahila Seva Sadan has not been registered. ii. The certificate produced by the accused is issued by the Indian Board of Alternative Medicine having its office at 80, Chaurangi Marg, Kolkata. iii. The certificate has not been registered by the Medical Council of Bengal Government. iv. During interrogation no satisfactory answer has been given regarding Alternative medicine. v. In the certificate the session has not been mentioned. vi. From the enquiry it has been revealed that the certificate has not been registered by any Government Institution and is not recognised. 3. In the enquiry report it is stated that illegal abortions are carried out at Seva Sadan. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Chatra upon receiving the enquiry report issued direction through letter dated 15.07.2005 for registration of a First Information Report. The learned Magistrate has observed in the order dated 15.07.2016 that in paragraph nos. 13, 20 and 21 the witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case against the accused. 4. The original records of the case were called for pursuant to the order dated 30.08.2016 and are placed along with the criminal revision petition. 5. Mr. Ashok. Kumar, the learned APP has read out the contents of the aforesaid paragraphs in the case-diary. In paragraph no. 13 of the case-diary statement of the Deputy Superintendent, Incharge, Sadar Hospital, Chatra is recorded. He has stated before the Investigating Officer that in course of enquiry the accused did not offer a satisfactory explanation about the degree and certificates obtained by her. The statement of Anil Soren who is husband of late Patia Devi is recorded in paragraph no. 20 and statement of the mother of Patia Devi was recorded in paragraph no. 21. He has stated before the Investigating Officer that in course of enquiry the accused did not offer a satisfactory explanation about the degree and certificates obtained by her. The statement of Anil Soren who is husband of late Patia Devi is recorded in paragraph no. 20 and statement of the mother of Patia Devi was recorded in paragraph no. 21. Both these witnesses have stated before the Investigating Officer that they brought Patia Devi for her treatment at Seva Sadan and she died due to wrong treatment. These witnesses have no doubt stated that the accused caused miscarriage but looking at their grievance that Patia Devi and the unborn child died due to wrong treatment which a rustic villager cannot confirm, it is not difficult to infer that if at all Patia Devi suffered miscarriage - though there is no evidence on this point; it was in good faith for the purpose of saving her life. 6. Having examined the materials on record, I find that in any View of the matter it cannot be said that business of carrying illegal miscarriage was run at Seva Sadan by the petitioner. There is no material on record to establish that the petitioner was in charge and control of the affairs of Seva Sadan at the relevant time. The enquiry report points out certain deficiencies in the degree and the certificates of the accused which in absence of opinion of the recognising body cannot be basis for implicating the petitioner for the offence of cheating - forgery is not alleged against her. The materials collected during the investigation do not establish the facts constituting commission of offence under sections 419, 420 and 312 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order dated 15.07.2016 is found seriously flawed in law and, accordingly, it is set-aside. 8. The entire criminal proceedings arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No. 141 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 452 of 2005 are quashed. 9. Criminal Revision No. 936 of 20 16 is allowed. 10. Let a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned through "FAX". Revision allowed.