Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (‘CrPC’) for quashing summons issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class against the petitioners for allegedly not properly performing surgery of respondent’s wife resulting in her death, a Single Judge Bench of Manisha Batra, J., held that the Magistrate failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record which did not attribute any negligence to the petitioners and did not refer the matter to a board of doctors for obtaining an independent and competent medical opinion.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition.
Background
In the present case, the respondent’s wife was pregnant, and she was taken to Nursing Home where Petitioners 1 and 2 reached on being called by the nurses. The wife was taken to the operation theatre, and it was informed that she would have normal delivery. The respondent was asked to deposit the fee.
Subsequently, Petitioners 2 and 3 informed the respondent that surgery was required for delivery. Petitioner 4, a practicing doctor was called to perform the surgery. The wife gave birth to twin daughters. Thereafter, the respondent was not allowed to meet his wife and was informed that she was bleeding profusely and that her uterus was required to be removed as her condition was serious. He was made to sign some papers. Her condition worsened and she was shifted to another hospital, where she was operated on again.
Doctors at the second hospital informed that the surgery had not been properly performed by the petitioners and that her uterus had not been removed, due to which infection had spread in her body. The wife of the respondent died during treatment. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed a complaint seeking penal action.
The jurisdictional Magistrate found a prima facie case and issued summons against the petitioners for offence punishable under Sections 34 and 304-A of the IPC. Thus, the petitioners Approached the High Court.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that the Magistrate, while passing the impugned summoning order, merely observed that the version in the complaint was corroborated by the medical evidence to the extent that the death occurred due to complications of pregnancy. No finding was recorded to the effect that the medical evidence established negligence on the part of the petitioners resulting in the death of the victim.
Thus, the Magistrate failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record, particularly the medical evidence in the form of testimony of the Professor of Surgery, which did not attribute any negligence to the petitioners. Rather, the testimony clearly indicated that the petitioners had not committed any negligence while treating the victim. The Magistrate also did not refer to the matter to a board of doctors for obtaining an independent and competent medical opinion.
Even otherwise, the police authorities had already conducted an inquiry through a medical team, which concluded that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioners. Therefore, the evidence produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate could not be said to be prima facie sufficient to support the allegations of medical negligence or rashness against the petitioners.
Thus, the Court allowed the petition at hand and quashed the complaint pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class along with the summoning order.
[Vijay Kumar Dhawan v. Gurpreet Singh, CRM-M No. 15772 of 2026 (O&M), decided on 8-1-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: P. S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate and H. S. Randhawa, Advocate
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
