Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 529
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ALOK ARADHE, JJ.
Narayana Health & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2461-2462 of 2026 Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 10379-10380 of 2023
Decided On : 12-05-2026
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shivendra Singh, AOR Mr. Bikram Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Prakriti Rastogi, Adv. Ms. Aryama Singh Rajput, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Mr. Parag Chaturvedi, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Wrong billing by Hospital – Service-related grievances cannot be raised before Criminal Court.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 406, 420 and 120B – West Bengal Clinical Establishments (Registration, Regulation and Transparency) Act, 2017 – Sections 29 and 34 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528 [Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482] – Wrong billing by Hospital – Issuance of process by Magistrate – While setting aside order of summons, High Court made a passing comment that offence has been made out – Complaint does not contain any averment that amount in question was entrusted to hospital to be held or utilised for a fiduciary or trust-based purpose, nor does it refer to any legal or contractual stipulation governing the manner in which such amount was required to be dealt with or any other averment to show as to how Section 405, IPC is made out – Upon mistake being pointed out, hospital had offered to refund amount wrongly charged – In absence of entrustment, dishonest misappropriation, or violation of fiduciary obligation, foundational ingredients of offence of criminal breach of trust as enshrined in Section 405, IPC are not satisfied – Allegation of cheating is also completely misplaced – There is nothing in complaint indicating a prior agreement, concerted plan, or meeting of minds among accused persons to commit an unlawful act so as to make out offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B – Complainant may have certain service-related grievances and these could be addressed under Section 29 of 2017 Act – No criminal offence under Section 34 of 2017 Act is made out – Complaint case quashed. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 15, 19 and 20)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals arise from judgement and order of High Court, setting aside summoning order passed by Judicial Magistrate and remanding the matter for reconsideration, especially regarding complicity of first appellant, a corporate entity running co accused hospital, and third appellant, being Chairman, both of whom are in a separate territorial jurisdiction than Magistrate. The main issue is whether allegations contained in complaint prima facie disclose commission of a criminal offence or not.
Findings of Court:
Quashing of criminal complaint will have no bearing on the civil or statutory remedies that complainant may exercise in accordance with law.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Key Points: - The complainant’s service-related grievances (billing discrepancies, records) could be addressed under Section 29 of the West Bengal Clinical Establishments Registration, Regulation and Transparency Act, 2017, not as criminal offences (!) (!) - The High Court’s remand and finding that offences were prima facie made out were reversed; the Court quashed the criminal complaint under Section 482 CrPC, holding no criminal offence under the 2017 Act or IPC sections alleged (!) (!) - No entrustment, fiduciary obligation, or dishonest misappropriation established to satisfy Section 405, IPC; no prior agreement or conspiracy established for Section 120B, IPC; cheating under Section 420 not made out based on the complaint (!) (!) (!) (!) - Allegations related to non-supply or delay in medical records could be civil or statutory redress under the 2017 Act, not criminal offences (!) - The Act provisions for penalties and offences (Sections 29, 34, 36) and their intended use for regulatory relief rather than criminal prosecution where grievances exist (!) (!) (!) (!) - (!)
What is the appropriate remedy for service-related grievances arising from billing and records regarding clinical establishments under the 2017 Act?
What are the circumstances under which criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC in cases involving alleged billing disputes and service-related grievances?
What is the Court’s stance on the applicability of Sections 405, 420, and 120B IPC and Section 34 of the 2017 Act to allegations of inflated billing in the present complaint?
JUDGMENT :
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals arise from the judgment and order of the High Court1[Vide judgment and order dated 16.05.2023 in C.R.R. No. 967 of 2021 with CRAN No. 1 of 2021.], setting aside the summoning order passed by the Judicial Magistrate2[Vide order dated 11.03.2021 in Complaint Case No. C-533 of 2021] and remanding the matter for reconsideration, especially regarding complicity of first appellant, a corporate entity running the co-accused hospital, and the third appellant, being the Chairman, both of whom are in a separate territorial jurisdiction than the Magistrate. The main issue is whether the allegations contained in the complaint prima facie disclose commission of a criminal offence or not.
3. The facts relevant for our consideration are as follows. The present proceedings arise out of a complaint filed by the second respondent (“complainant”) in relation to the medical treatment of his mother, Smt. Bina Sen, who was admitted to Narayana Multispecialty Hospital, Barasat, Kolkata, on 13.02.2021 for treatment of her fractured right femur bone. She underwent a successful surgery on 15.02.2021 and remained admitted until her discharge on 19.02.2021. Upon discharge, the hospital issued a bill for the medical services rendered. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1,71,130/-towards the treatment expenses, out of a total billed amount of approximately Rs. 1,94,307.84/- after certain discounts were applied by the hospital. After the discharge of the patient, the complainant approached the hospital authorities on 20.02.2021, raising concerns regarding certain discrepancies in the billing and seeking copies of medical records and documents relating to the treatment of his mother. The complainant was informed about the hospital's grievance redressal mechanism and was advised to follow the established procedure for obtaining records and addressing billing concerns. Subsequently, the complainant requested copies of medical documents and treatment records required for purposes of insurance reimbursement.
4. Thereafter, on 23.02.2021, the hospital issued a revised bill reflecting an adjustment in the charges, particularly in relation to an HRCT test amounting to Rs. 2,500/-, which had earlier been included in the bill. According to the hospital, though the said diagnostic test was proposed, it was in fact not conducted because the subsequent condition of the patient did not warrant it. Consequently, the revised bill reflected that the amount of Rs. 2,500/- was liable to be refunded to the complainant. The hospital communicated the same to the complainant through email on 24.02.2021, requesting him to collect the refund amount from the hospital counter or to provide bank details to facilitate the transfer of the amount. A reminder communication was also sent thereafter, requesting the complainant to collect the refund.
5. The complainant instituted Complaint Case No. C-533 of 2021 before the Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Barasat, alleging that the hospital had intentionally included charges for a diagnostic test which had not been performed, and that relevant medical documents were not supplied promptly. The complaint further alleged that certain hospital personnel (arrayed in this appeal as the fourth appellant and the third respondent) behaved improperly and issued threats when the complainant questioned the billing and sought clarification regarding the treatment records. On the basis of these allegations, offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), along with Section 34 of the West Bengal Clinical Establishments (Registration, Regulation and Transparency) Act, 2017 (“2017 Act”), were invoked against the first appellant, the company running the hospital; the second appellant, the hospital; the third appellant, being the Chairman of the company; the fourth appellant, being the representative attached with the hospital; and the third respondent, being the former employee o
