JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.08.2017 as well as entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No.407/16, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ramgarh. 3. The complaint case was filed by the husband of the deceased alleging therein his wife Late Shikha Sinha was under treatment of co-accused since last six months prior to occurrence dated 11.08.2016 and 12.08.2016. It was further alleged that during the treatment of said Shikha Sinha of her pregnancy all the accused persons named in the complaint petition in conspire with each other and with intend to remove the kidney of said Shikha Sinha for its unauthorized transportation and transplantation got her admitted in the said nursing home on 11.08.2016 and kept her in an isolated room and on very next day i.e. on 12.08.2016 some unknown persons came at the accused persons and they were talking with them for procurement of kidney and thereafter the said Shikha Sinha was brought to operation theatre and after half an hour she was taken away to some unknown place through an ambulance and after that ambulance returned back to nursing home and then two unknown persons had shifted to said ambulance and thereafter the complainant was also shifted in the said ambulance and went towards the deep forest area of Pirtand Jungle where some unknown persons were present arms with AK-47 rifles and then the complainant was forced to get the funeral ceremony of his wife done and they also threatened him for dire consequences if he would lodge any case against the accused persons. It was also alleged that the signature of the father-in-law of the complainant was also obtained on a typed paper by the said miscreants on the point of lethal arms. It was further alleged that after performing the cremation of the deceased Shikha Sinha, the complainant approached to the local police station for lodging an FIR, but FIR was lodged by delay by the police then the instant case has been filed after belated stage. 4. Mr. It was further alleged that after performing the cremation of the deceased Shikha Sinha, the complainant approached to the local police station for lodging an FIR, but FIR was lodged by delay by the police then the instant case has been filed after belated stage. 4. Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for the same cause of action, earlier FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased and in the said FIR, the police has investigated the matter and submitted final form stating that there is lack of evidence and the informant was called upon, but he has not responded and thereafter the learned court has accepted the final form. He further submits that on the same facts, the present complaint case has been filed by the husband of the deceased alleging therein that there is medical negligence of the distinguished doctors as well as nursing home, namely, Om Health Care, Ramgarh. He also submits that this is a case of malicious prosecution and against the mandate of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 1 . 5. Paragraphs 14 and 17 of the said judgment are quoted herein below: “14. In order to hold the existence of criminal rashness or criminal negligence it shall have to be found out that the rashness was of such a degree as to amount to taking a hazard knowing that the hazard was of such a degree that injury was most likely imminent. The element of criminality is introduced by the accused having run the risk of doing such an act with recklessness and indifference to the consequences. Lord Atkin in his speech in Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions stated : (All ER p. 556 C) “Simple lack of care such as will constitute civil liability is not enough. For purposes of the criminal law there are degrees of negligence, and a very high degree of negligence is required to be proved before the felony is established.” Thus, a clear distinction exists between “simple lack of care” incurring civil liability and “very high degree of negligence” which is required in criminal cases. For purposes of the criminal law there are degrees of negligence, and a very high degree of negligence is required to be proved before the felony is established.” Thus, a clear distinction exists between “simple lack of care” incurring civil liability and “very high degree of negligence” which is required in criminal cases. In Riddell v. Reid (AC at p. 31) Lord Porter said in his speech — “A higher degree of negligence has always been demanded in order to establish a criminal offence than is sufficient to create civil liability.” (Charlesworth & Percy, ibid., para 1.13) 17. In our opinion, the factor of grossness or degree does assume significance while drawing distinction in negligence actionable in tort and negligence punishable as a crime. To be latter, the negligence has to be gross or of a very high degree.” 6. Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Deputy Commissioner has constituted Three Men Enquiry Committee and that Committee has submitted the report whereby the petitioners have been exonerated. On this ground, he submits that entire prosecution case is malicious and this Court sitting under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may quash entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance. 7. Per contra, Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and the complainant witnesses were also examined and the learned court having found prima facie case, has taken cognizance against the petitioners and there is no illegality in the order taking cognizance. 8. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the cognizance order. 9. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has gone through the materials on the record and finds that earlier an FIR was lodged on the same ground of medical negligence due to which the deceased was died. The police has investigated that matter and submitted final form stating that there is lack of evidence. The informant was called upon by the learned court, but he has chosen not to appear and ultimately the learned court has accepted the final form. The Three Men Enquiry Committee's report is on the record whereby the petitioners have been exonerated. Nothing adverse has been held against the petitioners, who are practicing Doctors in Ramgarh town. The informant was called upon by the learned court, but he has chosen not to appear and ultimately the learned court has accepted the final form. The Three Men Enquiry Committee's report is on the record whereby the petitioners have been exonerated. Nothing adverse has been held against the petitioners, who are practicing Doctors in Ramgarh town. Looking to the complaint case, it appears that for the said alleged negligence, this complaint case has been filed. In a criminal case, summoning of an accused is a serious thing, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Limited v. Special Judicial Magistrate , reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 , wherein, it has been held that it should not be taken in a routine manner. Paragraph 28 of the said judgment is quoted herein below: “28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” 10. If the High Court sitting under Section 482 Cr.P.C. comes to the conclusion that prosecution is malicious, the Court is competent to quash the entire criminal proceedings even at the initial stage, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. If the High Court sitting under Section 482 Cr.P.C. comes to the conclusion that prosecution is malicious, the Court is competent to quash the entire criminal proceedings even at the initial stage, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. In the case of Martin F. D'Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq in Civil Appeal No.3541 of 2002, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered with the case under Consumer Protection Act and held that by routine way notice should not be issued against the Doctor unless expert opinion is before the court. 11. In view of the above facts, circumstances, reasons and analysis, this Court comes to the conclusion that it is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the order dated 21.08.2017 as well as entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No.407/16, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ramgarh is, hereby, quashed. 12. This petition is, therefore, allowed and disposed of. 13. Consequently, I.A. No.8338 of 2018 stands disposed of. 14. Interim order dated 21.02.2018 stands vacated.