1

CGHC010321602026 2026:CGHC:36994-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRMP No. 2172 of 2026

Dr Anil Gautam S/o Shri Sitaram Gautam Aged About 48 Years R/o

Village Narayanpur, Occupation M B B S Doctor, Tehsil Bhanupratappur,

District- Kanker (C.G.) P.S. Bhanupratappur District- Kanker (C.G.)

... Petitioner

versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police

Station Bhanupratappur District- Kanker (C.G.)

2 - Kamlesh Komra S/o Rajman Komra Aged About 23 Years R/o

Village Chahchad Tehsil Bhanupratappur District- Kanker (C.G.) P.S.

Durgkondal District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

... Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner :Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate

For Respondent No.1/State:Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government

Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

19.08.2026

1.Heard Mr. Ankit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate, appearing for

the State/respondent No.1.

2

2.The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section

528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short,

‘B.N.S.S.’) with the following relief:-

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court

may kindly be pleased to quash and set-aside

the impugned FIR dated 30.07.2026 (Annexure

P-1) registered against the petitioner bearing

Crime No. 149/2026, registered at Police Station

Bhanupratappur, District Kanker (C.G.) for the

offences punishable under Sections 106(1) of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, together with all

consequential proceedings arising therefrom, in

the interest of justice.”

3.Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is a qualified and

registered medical practitioner and is the Director/Proprietor of Gautam

Hospital, Bhanupratappur, District Kanker, which has been providing

medical services for approximately 17 years. On 15.05.2026, deceased

Smt. Draupati Komra, a full-term pregnant woman, was referred from

the Government Hospital to Gautam Hospital for delivery and further

obstetric management. Upon admission, she was examined and treated

under the supervision of the concerned treating doctors and medical

staff, and necessary investigations, medicines, blood arrangements and

other supportive treatment were provided.

4.Despite the medical management undertaken by the treating

team, the deceased and her newborn child unfortunately expired on

18.05.2026 during treatment at Gautam Hospital. Thereafter, the Chief

Medical and Health Officer, Kanker issued a Show Cause Notice dated

02.06.2026, to which the hospital submitted a detailed reply dated

3

03.06.2026. Subsequently, an administrative order dated 23.06.2026

was passed concerning the maternity and sonography departments of

the hospital.

5.The impugned FIR was thereafter registered on 30.07.2026,

approximately 73 days after the incident, for the offence punishable

under Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The

petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the FIR and

consequential proceedings, contending that no specific act or omission

constituting criminal negligence has been attributed to him personally.

6.Mr. Ankit Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

submits that the impugned FIR does not disclose any specific rash or

negligent act or omission personally attributable to the petitioner which

could constitute the direct and proximate cause of the death of the

deceased or her newborn child. The petitioner was the

Director/Proprietor of the hospital and was not the treating doctor of the

deceased; the medical treatment was undertaken by the concerned

gynaecologist and other medical personnel. It is, therefore, submitted

that the petitioner cannot be fastened with criminal liability merely on

account of his administrative or proprietary association with the hospital.

7.Learned counsel further submits that the unfortunate death of a

patient during medical treatment, by itself, does not constitute criminal

negligence. Placing reliance upon Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab,

(2005) 6 SCC 1, it is submitted that criminal negligence requires

negligence of a gross or very high degree and that a mere error of

4

judgment, ordinary negligence or an unsuccessful outcome of treatment

cannot automatically give rise to criminal liability. Reliance is also placed

upon Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Government of NCT of Delhi, (2004) 6

SCC 422, wherein the distinction between ordinary negligence and

criminal negligence requiring recklessness or gross negligence has

been reiterated.

8.It is further submitted that the medical negligence allegations must

be examined on the basis of competent medical material and that the

prosecution cannot substitute the factum of death for proof of criminal

negligence. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon Martin F.

D’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, (2009) 3 SCC 1, and Kusum Sharma &

Others v. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Others,

(2010) 3 SCC 480, wherein the Supreme Court has emphasized that a

medical professional is required to exercise reasonable skill and care

and is not a guarantor of a successful medical outcome. Learned

counsel also places reliance upon Supriya Kumari M.C. v. State of

Kerala & Ors., 2026 INSC 537, wherein the Supreme Court reiterated

the higher threshold applicable for fastening criminal liability upon a

medical professional.

9.Lastly, learned counsel submits that the present case falls within

the parameters governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction for preventing

abuse of the process of law. Relying upon State of Haryana v. Bhajan

Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly the categories enumerated in

paragraph 108, it is contended that where the allegations in the FIR,

5

even if accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute the

alleged offence or make out a case against the accused, the

proceedings can be quashed. It is therefore submitted that, in the

absence of any specific allegation or material disclosing gross criminal

negligence personally attributable to the petitioner, continuation of the

impugned proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.

10.Per contra, Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Government

Advocate appearing for the State, opposes the submissions advanced

by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the impugned FIR

has been lodged by the husband of the deceased, who has specifically

alleged that his wife, Smt. Draupadi Komra, and the newborn child died

during the course of treatment at Gautam Hospital on account of gross

negligence and inhuman conduct of the hospital management, Dr. Anil

Gautam and other staff. It is submitted that the allegations contained in

the FIR, at this stage, cannot be brushed aside, particularly when the

complainant has specifically narrated the medical circumstances

preceding the referral of his wife to Gautam Hospital and has attributed

negligence to the hospital authorities. He further submits that the FIR

discloses a cognizable offence and the allegations require proper

investigation with regard to the circumstances leading to the death of

the deceased and her newborn child. The complainant has specifically

alleged that the deceased was admitted at the Community Health

Centre, Bhanupratappur on 15.05.2026 in labour pain and, after the

medical condition was found critical, she was referred to Gautam

Hospital, where she ultimately died during delivery on 18.05.2026,

6

followed by the death of the newborn child. It is submitted that whether

the death was attributable to medical negligence, and whether any

specific act or omission on the part of the petitioner or other hospital

personnel constituted criminal negligence, are matters which cannot

appropriately be adjudicated at the threshold in exercise of the inherent

jurisdiction of this Court.

11.Learned Government Advocate submitted that the mere assertion

of the petitioner that he was not the treating doctor or that the treatment

was being administered by other medical personnel cannot, at the stage

of investigation, be accepted as sufficient to exonerate him from the

allegations made in the FIR. The precise role of the petitioner, the

responsibility of the hospital management, the treatment administered

to the deceased, the medical reports and other contemporaneous

records, and the causal nexus, if any, between the alleged negligence

and the unfortunate deaths are all matters requiring investigation and

consideration on the basis of medical and other evidence. It is therefore,

submits that the allegations in the FIR, when taken at their face value,

prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the

case does not fall within the exceptional categories warranting quashing

of the FIR at the inception. It is further submitted that the principles

governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the

BNSS are to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection,

particularly where the investigation is yet to establish the precise role of

the accused and accordingly prays for dismissal of the petition and for

permitting the investigating agency to proceed in accordance with law.

7

12.We have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by

learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned FIR, the

material placed on record and the other documents forming part of the

case.

13.From a perusal of the FIR, it appears that the complainant

Kamlesh Komra is the husband of deceased Smt. Draupadi Komra and

has specifically alleged that his wife was initially admitted at the

Community Health Centre, Bhanupratappur on 15.05.2026 in a

condition of labour pain and was thereafter referred to Gautam Hospital,

Bhanupratappur for further treatment. The FIR further alleges that the

deceased was in a critical condition and that, despite the alleged

requirement of immediate medical intervention, she was treated at

Gautam Hospital, where she died during delivery on 18.05.2026 at

about 3:30 a.m., and the newborn child also died shortly thereafter. The

complainant has attributed the unfortunate deaths to the alleged gross

negligence, improper conduct and inhuman insensitivity of the hospital

management, Dr. Anil Gautam and other staff. Thus, the FIR does not

merely narrate the factum of death, but contains specific allegations

regarding the condition of the deceased prior to her admission at

Gautam Hospital, her referral from the Government hospital, the

treatment thereafter and the circumstances in which both the mother

and newborn child expired.

14.At this stage, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, this Court is required to

8

examine whether the allegations contained in the FIR, if taken at their

face value and accepted in their entirety, disclose the commission of a

cognizable offence. The allegations in the present case relate to the

death of a full-term pregnant woman and her newborn child during the

course of treatment at the petitioner's hospital. The FIR specifically

alleges that the deceased had been referred to Gautam Hospital in a

critical condition and that the subsequent medical management resulted

in her death and the death of the newborn child. The question as to

whether the medical treatment administered was appropriate, whether

there was any deviation from the accepted medical protocol, whether

any particular act or omission constituted negligence, and whether such

act or omission had a direct and proximate causal connection with the

deaths, are matters which require examination on the basis of the

medical records, statements of the treating doctors and hospital staff,

expert medical opinion and other material collected during investigation.

At the stage of considering a petition for quashing, this Court cannot

undertake a detailed appreciation of such material or determine the

correctness of the allegations as though conducting a trial.

15.It is true that the petitioner has relied upon the fact that he was not

the treating doctor and that the treatment was being administered by the

concerned gynaecologist and other medical personnel. The petitioner

has also relied upon the contemporaneous medical records, the reply

dated 03.06.2026 to the Show Cause Notice and the subsequent

administrative proceedings concerning the maternity and sonography

departments. However, these circumstances, by themselves, cannot be

9

treated as conclusive proof that the allegations in the FIR are false or

that the petitioner had no role whatsoever in the circumstances leading

to the alleged offence. The precise role of the petitioner, being the

Director/Proprietor of Gautam Hospital, the nature of his involvement,

the responsibility of the hospital management, the treatment actually

administered to the deceased and the role of the other medical

personnel are all matters which have to be determined on the basis of

evidence. The fact that the petitioner may not have personally

administered treatment is a matter which can be urged and established

by him during the course of the proceedings, but at the threshold this

Court cannot, on the basis of the defence pleaded by the petitioner,

conclusively determine the same.

16.Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the

judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including Jacob Mathew

(supra), Dr. Suresh Gupta (supra), Martin F. D'Souza (supra), Kusum

Sharma (supra) and Supriya Kumari M.C. (supra), contending that

criminal liability for medical negligence requires a higher degree of

negligence and that an unfortunate medical outcome, by itself, cannot

constitute criminal negligence. There can be no quarrel with the

aforesaid settled proposition. However, the question whether the

allegations made in the present FIR ultimately satisfy the requisite

threshold of criminal negligence is a matter which depends upon the

evidence and medical material available in the case. The principles

relating to the higher threshold for criminal medical negligence cannot

be applied at the stage of quashing so as to undertake an assessment

10

of the sufficiency or reliability of the evidence, particularly when the FIR

prima facie sets out allegations concerning the treatment of the

deceased and the circumstances resulting in the deaths of both the

mother and the newborn child.

17.The delay of approximately 73 days in registration of the FIR has

also been relied upon by the petitioner. From the record, it is evident

that immediately after the incident, the health authorities initiated

administrative proceedings and issued a Show Cause Notice dated

02.06.2026, to which the hospital submitted its reply dated 03.06.2026.

An administrative order was thereafter passed on 23.06.2026

concerning the functioning of the maternity and sonography

departments. The FIR was ultimately registered on 30.07.2026.

However, the effect and significance of the delay, as well as the

circumstances in which the complaint came to be lodged after the

administrative proceedings, are matters which may be considered

during investigation and, if necessary, at the appropriate stage of the

criminal proceedings. Delay, by itself, particularly when the FIR

otherwise discloses allegations requiring investigation, cannot be

treated as a sufficient ground for quashing the criminal proceedings at

the threshold.

18.The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal

proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint,

FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in

exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the

11

investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations

made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and

accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or

make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may

be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers

under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.).

19.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rupan Deol Bajaj

v. K.P.S. Gill reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State

of NCT of Delhi reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals

& Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors reported in 2000 SCC

(Cri) 615, the Supreme Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is

made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not

quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not

constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and

improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note

of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the

Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there

is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie

case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof

cannot be quashed.

20.In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra,

2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

authoritatively settled the scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High

Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now

12

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The

Apex Court has held that the power to quash criminal proceedings is

required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the

rarest of rare cases. It has been categorically observed that while

considering a prayer for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, the

High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability,

genuineness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR, nor

can it appreciate the evidence or conduct a mini trial. The Court is only

required to examine whether the allegations, if taken at their face value,

disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court

further emphasized that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at

the threshold, that investigation into cognizable offences should

ordinarily be permitted to proceed unhindered, and that the

extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised

with great caution and self-restraint, save in exceptional cases where

non-interference would result in manifest miscarriage of justice.

21.Very recently, in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar

Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on

02.09.2025), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid

principles and further held that while exercising jurisdiction under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS), the High Court

cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact or evaluate the evidentiary

worth of the material collected during investigation. Unless all these

parameters are cumulatively satisfied, the High Court ought not to

interfere in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, leaving the parties to

13

establish their respective cases before the trial Court in accordance with

law.

22.Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Pradeep Kumar

Kesharwani (supra), we are of the considered view that the present

case does not fall within the category of cases where the allegations in

the FIR, even if accepted in their entirety, fail to disclose any cognizable

offence or where the continuation of proceedings would manifestly

amount to abuse of the process of law. The FIR contains allegations

which require investigation into the circumstances surrounding the

treatment and deaths of the deceased and her newborn child. The

defence of the petitioner that no specific negligent act is attributable to

him personally, that he was not the treating doctor, and that the

treatment was administered by other medical professionals, involves

factual questions which cannot appropriately be adjudicated in the

present proceedings.

23.In the considered opinion of this Court, the present matter requires

the investigating agency to examine the complete medical record, the

circumstances in which the deceased was referred from the

Government Hospital to Gautam Hospital, the condition of the deceased

at the time of admission, the treatment and medical intervention

undertaken thereafter, the role of the treating doctors and other hospital

personnel, and the precise role, if any, attributable to the petitioner. The

medical records, treatment papers, duty roster, investigation material

14

and expert medical opinion, if collected during investigation, would have

to be considered in their proper perspective. This Court, while

exercising its inherent jurisdiction, cannot conduct a mini-trial or weigh

the respective versions of the parties to determine whether the alleged

medical negligence ultimately stands established.

24.Consequently, at this stage, we find no sufficient ground to

interfere with the impugned FIR in exercise of the jurisdiction under

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The

allegations contained therein, when taken at their face value, warrant

investigation and cannot be held to be inherently absurd, inherently

improbable or wholly devoid of any factual foundation. The contentions

raised by the petitioner regarding his individual role, the absence of a

specific negligent act, the nature of the administrative proceedings and

the applicability of the principles governing criminal medical negligence

are left open to be considered at the appropriate stage on the basis of

the material brought on record.

25.Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is

dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the observations contained

in this order are confined strictly to the consideration of the petition

under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of

the allegations or the guilt or innocence of the petitioner. The petitioner

shall be at liberty to raise all factual and legal contentions available to

him before the competent Court, which shall consider the same

15

independently and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any

observation made herein.

26.There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)

Judge Chief Justice

Anu