The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a fertility specialist, ruling that the mere failure of an in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedure to result in pregnancy does not constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) . The court determined that medical outcomes cannot be treated as a guarantee and that initiating criminal trials for unsuccessful treatments sets a dangerous precedent for the medical profession.

The ruling came in response to an application filed by Dr. Sarita Teotia, who had been summoned to face trial by an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Bulandshahr. The complainant, Jaiveer Singh, had alleged that despite paying Rs 3,50,000 for fertility treatment at the doctor’s clinic, his wife failed to conceive. He accused the medical professional of fraud , claiming she had deceptively promised a successful pregnancy, and subsequently filed a complaint after she allegedly refused to refund the treatment fees.

Upon reviewing the records, including the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , Justice Chawan Prakash observed that the lower courts had failed to establish the essential elements required to invoke Section 420 IPC. Central to the court’s decision was the principle that criminal liability requires a dishonest and fraudulent inducement present at the very inception of a transaction, rather than a subsequent failure of the desired outcome.

Treatment Failure Versus Fraudulent Intent

In its assessment, the court emphasized the inherent uncertainty of medical science, particularly in specialized reproductive fields. IVF is a complex medical procedure influenced by numerous physiological factors, and the court maintained that professional services should not be conflated with guaranteed results. The High Court drew upon established legal precedents to clarify that a breach of contract or an unsatisfactory medical outcome is distinct from the criminal intent required for fraud .

As the Court observed: “Medical science is not an exact science. A medical practitioner cannot guarantee a cure.” By applying this standard to the present case, the judge noted that the fertility specialist had provided the medical services for which she was engaged, and the eventual failure of the treatment did not serve as evidence of an initial fraudulent design. The court further remarked: “Allowing criminal prosecution under Section 420 I.P.C. for unsuccessful medical treatment would set a dangerous precedent, subjecting medical professionals to criminal liability whenever a medical procedure does not yield the desired result.”

The judgment underscored that the payments made by the complainant were for services and procedures rendered over the course of the treatment. Consequently, the dispute regarding the efficacy of the treatment or the refund of fees was characterized as a matter of civil or consumer grievance rather than a criminal offence warranting the intervention of the penal code.

Judicial Criticism of Mechanical Summoning

The High Court also expressed strong disapproval regarding the manner in which the initial summoning order was passed by the Magistrate. Under the law, a magistrate is expected to act as a gatekeeper of justice, ensuring that there is sufficient prima facie evidence before compelling an individual to face the ordeal of a criminal trial. The court found that the Magistrate had acted in a “casual and mechanical manner” without applying the necessary judicial scrutiny to the allegations presented.

It was noted that the mere examination of a few witnesses to corroborate a complaint is insufficient to set the machinery of criminal law in motion. Instead, a magistrate is required to apply his or her mind to the facts and the law, and where necessary, pose questions to the complainant to ascertain the veracity of the claims. In this instance, the lack of such rigorous evaluation led to the issuance of a summoning order that the High Court deemed an abuse of the court’s process .

The quashing of the proceedings brings an end to a protracted legal conflict that began with an application under Section 156(3) CrPC , followed by a dismissed criminal revision petition in 2020 . By setting aside the orders passed by both the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Additional District and Sessions Judge , the High Court has reaffirmed that criminal law cannot be utilized as a tool for harassment or for resolving disputes that lack the fundamental ingredients of a criminal offence.

The decision serves as a significant guidance for lower courts, emphasizing the necessity of protecting professionals from frivolous criminal litigation arising from professional disappointments. By distinguishing between professional failure and criminal dishonesty, the High Court has provided a clear framework for handling cases involving medical practitioners, ensuring that the judicial process remains a forum for substantive justice rather than an instrument of secondary litigation. The complaint case against the doctor, along with all subsequent revisional orders, has been formally quashed , providing the applicant with relief from the ongoing criminal proceedings .