Dr. Sunil Gupta And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 9854 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Dr. Sunil Gupta And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 29 April, 2025

Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?"AFR"
 
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:67035-DB
 
Court No. - 42
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1944 of 2025
 
Petitioner :- Dr. Sunil Gupta And 5 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Singh,Ramendra Pratap Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shashi Ranjan Srivastava,Sunder Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
 

Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J.

1. Heard Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sunder Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Sri G.P. Singh, learned AGA-1, for the State-respondent and perused the record.

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of Constitution of India for quashing the FIR dated 13.01.2025 being Case Crime No.0014 of 2025, under Sections 120-B, 326, 506 IPC and Section 18 of Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, Police Station Narsena, District Bulandshahar and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to impugned FIR.

3. While entertaining the writ petition on 18.02.2025 the Division Bench has accorded interim relief in favour of the petitioners. For ready reference the order dated 18.02.2025 is reproduced as under:-

"1. Heard Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners; Shri Sunder Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Paritosh Malviya, learned AGA-1 for State respondents.

2. The supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

3. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 13.01.2025 being Case Crime No.0014 of 2025 under Sections 120-B, 326, 506 IPC and Section 18 of Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, P.S. Narsena, Distt. Bulandshahar and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to impugned FIR.

4. It is contended that the impugned FIR has been lodged totally on false allegations just to harass the petitioners. The incident is alleged to have happened in the 2017 and the impugned FIR has been lodged with substantial delay without giving any proper explanation for such a long delay. The petitioners are qualified doctors and practicing in KMC Hospital & Diagnostic Centre, Meerut. The informant had failed to place on record the discharge summary details to substantiate her claim regarding her treatment in the hospital. There is also no evidence of her post-operative follow up/ cutting of stitches. The hospital maintains record of only two years as per the norms of CPA and as such the claim of the petitioner could also not be verified. It is contended that the medical reports / ultrasound report of the informant clearly shows that her left kidney was not normal and not seen at its place, which in medical term can be categorized as non-visualization, Ectopic (Abnormally placed) or malrotated (Twisted). As such the allegation that the first petitioner had removed the kidney for the purpose of sale is not sustainable and thus Section 18 of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 would not be attracted here. In support his submissions, he has placed reliance upon judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, 2005 LawSuit(SC) 1045 and Dr. Suresh Gupta vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr., (Appeal (Crl.) No. 778 of 2004). Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Amgadkar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2025 LawSuit (SC) 147. It is contended that the petitioners are innocent having no criminal antecedent and in case no indulgence is accorded, the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and injury.

5. Learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that since cognizable offence is made out, no indulgence is required in the instant matter.

6. The general principles on the subject have been lucidly and elaborately explained in the three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew (Supra). In the instant matter, considering the medical reports/ ultrasound report of the informant, we made a pointed query from the informant's counsel, whether the removed dysfunctional kidney for the purpose of sale is feasible or not but there was no satisfactory response on his behalf. We also find that the informant had approached to the Consumer Forum as well as this Court with much inordinate delay. In such circumstances, prima facie case is made out in favour of the petitioners.

7. The matter requires consideration.

8. The respondents are accorded four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. One week, thereafter, is accorded to file rejoinder affidavit. List thereafter.

9. Until further orders, the petitioners shall not be arrested pursuant to impugned FIR, provided they cooperate with the investigation in question."

4. Thereafter the matter was again taken up on 15.04.2025 and on the said date, we have asked the learned AGA for the State-respondents to obtain appropriate instructions in the light of the report submitted by the Medical Board, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2005 LawSuit (SC) 1045. For ready reference the order dated 15.04.2025 is also reproduced as under:-

"1. Heard Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Sunder Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Shri G.P. Singh, learned AGA-I for the State respondents.

2. While filing the rejoinder affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioners has brought on record the report dated 24.02.2025 submitted by the Chief Medical Officer, Bulandshahr as well as the report dated 24.02.2025 submitted by the Medical Board of five Specialist Doctors with conclusion.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that once categorical report has been submitted by the Medical Board consisting five Doctors, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab reported in 2005 LawSuit (SC) 1045.

4. Let learned AGA to obtain appropriate instructions in the light of the report submitted by the Medical Board.

5. List this matter on 29.02.2025 in top ten cases.

6. Interim order granted earlier is extended till the next date of listing."

5. Today, when the matter is taken up Sri G.P. Singh, learned AGA-1, on the instructions, states that considering the report of Medical Board, in the light of Jacob Mathew(Supra), the matter has been examined and the investigation had been concluded and final report had been submitted to the competent court on 24.04.2025.

6. In this background Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners states that in absence of any report of the Medical Board, lodging of the FIR is arbitrary. He further submitted that the Medical Board constituted has carefully examined the facts and found that there was no medical negligence on the part of the petitioners. No doubt in the instant matter the complicity of the petitioners have not been found and at the same time, the instant FIR is a sheer misuse of the process of law. Learned counsel for the petitioners further prayed that instant FIR is liable to be quashed.

7. For better appreciation of facts it is necessary to discuss the law laid down by the Apex Court inJacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1, wherein the foundational principles governing medical negligence were elaborately discussed by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court.

8. In paragraph 41 of Jacob Mathew(supra), the Apex Court noted that a medical practitioner is expected to possess and apply a reasonable degree of skill and care not the highest, nor the lowest. Yet, what constitutes "reasonable care" can vary, even among medical experts. Similarly, the distinction between simple and gross negligence which determines civil versus criminal liability is often contentious and subjective.

9. Law, like medicine, is an inexact science. Outcomes in such cases are deeply fact-dependent and influenced by the presiding Judge's interpretation. Still, broad principles must guide judicial decisions. Importantly, two realities must be acknowledged: (1) Judges are not trained in medicine and must rely on expert testimonies that may not always be objective; and (2) while negligence must be penalized, doctors must also be protected from unwarranted litigation that hampers their ability to make clinical judgments without fear.

10. Recognizing these concerns, in paragraph 52 of Jacob Mathew(supra), the Supreme Court set out safeguards:

a. "Prima facie evidence: No private complaint should be entertained without credible medical opinion supporting the negligence charge.

b. Independent medical review: Investigating officers must seek an impartial medical opinion, preferably from a government doctor, before proceeding.

c. No routine arrests: Doctors should not be arrested merely upon accusation unless necessary for investigation or prosecution. However, applying these principles to individual cases remains complex."

11. In a benchmark case for medical negligence, Bolam v. Friern Hospital (1957) 1 WLR 582, the Apex Court, while discussing the parameters for establishing medical negligence propounded the Bolam Test, according to which a doctor is not negligent if he acts in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical professionals skilled in that particular field. The same principle was endorsed by the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew (supra).

12. Furthermore, in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, 1996 AIR 550, the Apex Court held that while skill levels vary, negligence must be proven by the complainant. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) is rarely applied in Indian courts. It is the complainant's duty to prove negligence through credible expert evidence, beyond reasonable doubt.

13. Considering the legal and factual situation, as emerges from the record, and the view adopted by the Apex Court in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (supra) and Jacob Mathew(supra), we find that lodging of FIR in the instant matter is a sheer misuse of the process under the law, moreso, when the Medical Board on examination of the evidences found no culpable negligence on the part of the petitioners and the same is reflected from the fact that a final report has been filed in the instant matter on 24.04.2025.

14. Under the facts and circumstances, the FIR dated 13.01.2025 stands quashed.

15. The writ petition stands allowed.

(Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)

Order Date :- 29.4.2025

VKG