Rajasthan High Court: In a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the accused, seeking to quash the FIR and subsequent proceeding for a case of medical negligence and cheating, the Single-Judge Bench of Anand Sharma, J., dismissed the petition, holding that the prosecution was valid. The Court held that the investigating agency was not barred from conducting further investigation and filing a charge sheet even after submitting a negative final report under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), and the subsequent prosecution for medical negligence was rightly initiated as it was supported by expert medical opinion, thereby complying with the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1.
Background
An FIR was lodged by the complainant against the accused, alleging medical negligence. The complainant’s daughter-in-law was undergoing treatment for her first pregnancy under the accused’s supervision at a hospital in Jaipur.
On 17-01-2007, the daughter-in-law was admitted to the hospital, and the accused allegedly assured the complainant of a normal delivery. However, the next day, 18-01-2007, at around 10.00 A.M., the accused left for Ajmer, leaving the daughter-in-law to the mercy of unskilled employees and later the child died due to the umbilical cord being struck around his neck. The complainant alleged that the child died only on account of grave negligence of the accused and hospital employees, which could have been saved by a skilled medical expert. After the initial investigation, the police authorities submitted a negative final report on 14-12-2007, as no cognizable offence was found to be proved against the accused.
Subsequently, one application was filed by the investigating officer mentioning that on conduct of further investigation a decision was taken to file a charge sheet in the matter. Permission was sought to return the file/case diary for filing the charge sheet which was allowed by the Trial Court. A charge sheet was then filed, and the Trial Court took cognizance for offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 420 of the IPC and issued process against the accused. A criminal revision petition filed by the accused against the order of framing charges was dismissed by the Revisional Court. The accused then filed the present criminal miscellaneous petition for quashing the FIR and all subsequent proceedings.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the first question which arises for consideration was as to whether after filing negative final report and without there being any protest petition by the complainant, on application filed by the investigating officer, the trial court had the power to return the file/negative final report for the purpose of filing charge sheet against the accused or not?
The Court examined the ambit of Sections 173(3) and 173(8) CrPC. The Court held that a bare perusal of Section 173(8) of the CrPC specifies that the investigating agency is not precluded from conducting further investigation despite submitting a final report, and any further evidence found can be filed before the Magistrate with a further report.
The Court noted that in Ramachandran v. R. Udhayakumar, (2008) 5 SCC 413, the Supreme Court had held that even if a negative final report was forward to the Magistrate, there is no bar in CrPC on further investigation of the matter and since the decision to further investigate the matter was taken by the investigating agency itself, there was no requirement for order of the Magistrate. The Court held that,
“in the present case also the trial court has committed no mistake in returning the negative final report to the investigating agency and allowing filing of the charge sheet on discovery of new evidence during further investigation. Such process adopted either by the investigating agency or by the trial court is neither erroneous, nor illegal.”
The Court then dealt with the accused’s submission that the FIR does not contain any allegations of medical negligence or of cheating. The Court noted that,
“FIR is not an encyclopaedia and should be read with the material collected by the investigating agency during investigation.”
The Court noted that the investigation found the accused was not a qualified Gynaecologist and falsely presented herself as an expert to induce pregnant women for treatment and delivery. Serious lapses were found, including the lack of technical experts and sonography facilities essential for properly detecting the foetus’s position. Therefore, the FIR could not be quashed merely because it initially lacked specific allegations of medical negligence or cheating, as sufficient material was found later in the investigation.
The Court then dealt with the accused’s submission that not obtaining the report of a medical expert was in contravention of the guidelines set out by the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1.. In Jacob Mathew case it was held that a medical professional is liable for negligence if they either lack the requisite skill they claimed to have or fail to exercise the skill they do possess with reasonable competence. The Supreme Court had observed that because investigating officers and complainants may not understand medical science, the report of medical experts is necessary before prosecuting a medical professional under Section 304-A of the IPC for rash and negligent acts.
The Court found that, during the course of the CID(CB)’s further investigation, crucial expert opinions were obtained. Specifically, a parallel complaint lodged before the Rajasthan Medical Council was examined by as many as eight medical experts. The Rajasthan Medical Council issued a report on 18-08-2008 stating that there were poor clinical judgment and carelessness on the part of the doctors concerned. Furthermore, a report from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, SMS Medical College, submitted by three professors and the Head of the Department, suggested that the treatment was not done in a proper manner, that ultra sonography was not conducted at the relevant time, and that the foetal monitoring facility was not available.
The Court concluded that since the subsequent charge sheet was filed on the basis of these reports by competent medical experts/bodies, the prosecution had complied with the guidelines laid down in Jacob Mathew.
The Court held that merely because the FIR did not contain specific allegations, the proceedings cannot be quashed when sufficient material was found in the further investigation to infer that the offences under Sections 304-A and 420 IPC had been committed.
In light of the afore-stated reasons, the Court found no illegality, irregularity, or perversity warranting interference in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, and consequently dismissed the petition.
[Vinay Suren v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 5451, order dated on 29-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: A.K. Gupta, Senior Advocate assisted by Rinesh Gupta, Saurabh Pratap Singh Chouhan, Pulkit, Gaurav Sharma, Samat Alam, Ashutosh Singh Naruka, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Vivek Sharma, Public Prosecutor, Anshuman Saxena with Divyansh Saini, Advocates
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
