[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mahaveer Khandelwal on 22 January, 2026
1 CRA-4462-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 4462 of 2023
(THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs MAHAVEER KHANDELWAL )
Dated : 22-01-2026
Shri Surendra Pal Singh Alawa - G.A. for the appellant/State.
Shri Lucky Jain - Advocate for the respondent.
Heard on I.A. No.4452/2023, which is an application seeking leave to
appeal.
2. This criminal appeal under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. 1973 is
preferred for leave to appeal against the respondent challenging the acquittal
of respondent from the charge under Section 304-A of the IPC vide judgment
dated 31.12.2012 in Criminal Case No.7666/2012 by JMFC, Ujjain in a case
arising out of Crime No.206/2010 registered at P.S. Kotwali, Ujjain.
3. The respondent/ accused was prosecuted for causing negligence in
the treatment of Madhuri Soni on 29.01.2010 and recommended blood
transfusion to the patient Madhuri Soni without necessary investigations.
Consequently, Madhuri Soni sustained reaction and got died. The trial Court
acquitted the respondent/accused and extended the benefit of doubt to the
respondent/accused.
4. Challenging the order of acquittal, this appeal has been preferred
and permission has been sought under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C.,
1973. Learned counsel for the appellant/State has submitted that the trial
Court acquitted the respondent ignoring the reliable documents, and the trial
Court committed a grave error in ignoring the fact that the admitting doctor
2 CRA-4462-2023
is guilty of admitting the patient without examining her and without
conducting blood group checking test and providing treatment assistance like
blood transfusion, hence, appeal filed by the State be allowed and the
respondent be convicted.
Heard
5. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the judgment of
acquittal and prayed for rejection of this appeal.
6. The parameters for grant of leave to appeal have been reiterated by
the Apex Court in Manoj Rameshlal Chhabriya v. Mahesh Prakash Ahuja &
Anr., reported in 2025 INSC 282 , wherein the Apex Court, in paragraphs 7
and 8, has laid down the principles, which are reproduced below:-
"7. The question as to how the application for grant of leave to
appeal filed under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. should be decided
by the High Court and what are the parameters which the High
Court should keep in mind remains no longer res integra. This
issue was examined by this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sujay
Mangesh Poyarekar reported in (2008) 9 SCC 475. C.K. Thakker,
J. speaking for the Bench held in paras 19, 20, 21 and 24
respectively as under:
"19. Now, Section 378 of the Code provides for filing of appeal by the
State in case of acquittal. Sub-section (3) declares that no appeal "shall
be entertained except with the leave of the High Court". It is, therefore,
necessary for the State where it is aggrieved by an order of acquittal
recorded by a Court of Session to file an application for leave to appeal
as required by sub- section (3) of Section 378 of the Code. It is also
true that an appeal can be registered and heard on merits by the High
Court only after the High Court grants leave by allowing the
application filed under sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the Code.
20. In our opinion, however, in deciding the question whether requisite
leave should or should not be granted, the High Court must apply its
mind, consider whether a prima facie case has been made out or
arguable points have been raised and not whether the order of acquittal
would or would not be set aside.
21. It cannot be laid down as an abstract proposition of law of universal
application that each and every petition seeking leave to prefer an
appeal against an order of acquittal recorded by a trial court must be
3 CRA-4462-2023
allowed by the appellate court and every appeal must be admitted and
decided on merits. But it also cannot be overlooked that at that stage,
the court would not enter into minute details of the prosecution
evidence and refuse leave observing that the judgment of acquittal
recorded by the trial court could not be said to be "perverse" and,
hence, no leave should be granted.
xxx xxx
xxx
24. We may hasten to clarify that we may not be understood to have
laid down an inviolable rule that no leave should be refused by the
appellate court against an order of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
We only state that in such cases, the appellate court must consider the
relevant material, sworn testimonies of prosecution witnesses and
record reasons why leave sought by the State should not be granted
and the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court should not be
disturbed. Where there is application of mind by the appellate court
and reasons (may be in brief) in support of such view are recorded, the
order of the court may not be said to be illegal or objectionable. At the
same time, however, if arguable points have been raised, if the material
on record discloses deeper scrutiny and reappreciation, review or
reconsideration of evidence, the appellate court must grant leave as
sought and decide the appeal on merits. In the case on hand, the High
Court, with respect, did neither.
In the opinion of the High Court, the case did not require grant of
leave. But it also failed to record reasons for refusal of such leave."
8. In Sita Ram v. State of U.P. reported in
(1979) 2 SCC 656, this Court held that:
"31. ... A single right of appeal is more or less a universal requirement
of the guarantee of life and liberty rooted in the [concept] that men are
fallible, that Judges are men and that making assurance doubly sure,
before irrevocable deprivation of life or liberty comes to pass, a full-
scale re- examination of the facts and the law is made an integral part
of fundamental fairness or procedure."
Now come to the facts of this case
7. In this case there is a report of panel of doctors comprising Dr.
Mahavir Khandelwal, Dr. B.B. Purohit, Dr. N.K. Sharma, Dr. Y.K. Vyas,
Dr. D.P. Singh Gahirwar. Report Ex.P-8 has been proved through Dr. Dilip
(PW-15) and as per report Ex.P-8 and the statement of Dr. Dilip (PW-15),
the respondent/accused committed negligence in the treatment of the
4 CRA-4462-2023
deceased and being a doctor employed in the District Hospital, Ujjain he
admitted the deceased into his private nursing home and without necessary
investigations/ tests advised to the transfusion of blood.
8. In the light of the abovementioned evidence, this Court is satisfied
with that the prima facie case has been made out and arguable points have
been raised regarding the criminal liability of the appellant/accused. Hence,
the case falls within the permissible parameters for grant of leave to appeal
against acquittal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
9. Accordingly, I.A. No.4452/2023 is hereby allowed. Leave to appeal
is granted.
10. The respondent is directed to furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs.
5,000/- before the JMFC, Ujjain, on or before 20.03.2026, to secure his
appearance, and thereafter on such dates as may be fixed by the Trial Court.
The Trial Court shall subsequently intimate this Court as to whether the
respondent has furnished the bail bond or not.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
Vatan
