SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Bom) 457

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH
Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.
Dr. Dwarkadas s/o Narayandas Rathi - Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, through Ministry of Home Affairs - Non-applicants
Criminal Application (APL) no.764 of 2023
Decided On : 06-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Shri Mandar Deshpande, Counsel
For the Respondent: Shri A.M.Kadukar, APP, Shri Anup Dhore, Counsel

Criminal liability under IPC 304-A for medical negligence requires prima facie gross negligence by ordinary competent doctor standard; no prosecution without material proving rash act, as simple error or unlinked death insufficient.

Headnote:(A) IPC - Sections 304-A and 201 - Medical negligence - Quashing of FIR and proceedings - No prima facie case made out for offences - Death due to shock from pulmonary edema from trauma to thoracic spinal cord due to unknown injection and comorbidities - Chemical analysis of injection site skin negative for poison - Witness statements of clinic staff show patient allowed to rest on complaint of chest pain by doctor's wife (medical professional), collapsed without any treatment or injection by applicant - No material linking applicant to injection or any treatment - Mere death in clinic insufficient for gross negligence - Prosecution requires proof of rash/negligent act no ordinary competent doctor would do - Guidelines mandate independent expert opinion before FIR - FIR quashed. (Paras 3, 19-27, 30)

(B) Medical negligence - Criminal vs civil - Higher degree i.e. gross negligence required under criminal law - Simple lack of care, error of judgment or accident not sufficient if follows accepted medical practice - Standard is ordinary skilled practitioner, judged by knowledge at time of incident - Bolam test applicable - No arrest routinely; need prima facie evidence or expert opinion. (Paras 10-18)

Facts of the case:
Informant PSI alleged medical negligence by doctor causing death by spinal injection. Patient arrived at clinic, rested on advice of doctor's wife after chest pain complaint, fell and died. Investigation: spot/inquest panchnama, postmortem (opinion reserved), CA report no poison, expert/committee opinion as above. Staff statements: no treatment/injection by doctor. Wife of deceased claimed telephonic info of injection, but absent. Treatment papers not provided despite demand.

Findings of Court:
No evidence applicant examined, treated or injected patient; negligence not established; proceedings abuse of process.

Issues: Whether prima facie material for gross medical negligence under Section 304-A IPC to proceed to trial; validity of FIR absent proof of rash/negligent act by doctor.

Ratio Decidendi: Absent substantiation that doctor administered injection or breached duty of ordinary competent practitioner, no gross negligence; civil negligence threshold lower than criminal requiring mens rea-like high degree; expert reports unhelpful without link to doctor; protects professionals from frivolous prosecution.

Result: Criminal application allowed; FIR Crime No.161/2023 and SCC No.649/2023 quashed against applicant.

Table of Content
1. quashing application for medical negligence fir (Para 1 , 2)
2. no evidence of treatment or injection by applicant (Para 3)
3. clinic death implies negligence from unknown injection (Para 4 , 5)
4. prima facie case assessment required (Para 6 , 7)
5. bolam test demands gross negligence for doctors (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. witness statements deny injection administration (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
7. reports confirm unknown injection, no poison detected (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
8. insufficient proof of gross medical negligence (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
9. fir quashed for lack of evidence (Para 31)

JUDGMENT :

URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

1. Heard learned counsel Shri Mandar Deshpande for the applicant, learned APP Shri A.M.Kadukar for the State, and learned counsel Shri Anup Dhore for the non-applicant No.3.Admit. Heard finally by consent.

2. By this application, the applicant seeks quashing of the FIR in connection with Crime No.161/2023 registered under Sections 304-A and 201 of the IPC and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing SCC No.649/2023.

3. In the present case, informant Ganesh Dinkar Kayande serving as PSI of Police Station Telhara, District Akola alleges “medical negligence” on the part of the applicant, who is doctor by profession, who has allegedly given an “injection” in Spinal Cord of Dilip Malekar (the deceased) who unfortunately succumbed to the injection. As per recital of the FIR, initially, a Murg was filed and an enquiry was conducted. The investigating officer prepared spot panchanama, inquest panchanama, and referred the dead body of the deceased for postmortem. The investigating agency has recorded statements of witnesses who were employed at “Gomati Clinic” and also forwarded samples for chemical analysis. After receipt of the CA Report, opinion was given that cause of death of the deceased was, “due to shock due to pulmonary edema due to trauma to thoracic spinal cord and coronary artery disease with acute tubular necrosis of the kidneys". As per the investigation papers, the deceased had been to the clinic of the applicant where he was injected and, thereafter, he never regained consciousness and subsequently succumbed to death on 16.5.2022. During investigation, it further revealed that the cause of death of the deceased was because of “pulmonary edema”. It could be the reaction due to trauma to the thoracic spinal cord due to “an unknown injection:. Despite treatment papers were demanded, the applicant has not provided the same. The Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Akola by letter dated 3.11.2022 also intimated cause of death of the deceased. The Advisory Committee has accepted the said cause of death and, thereafter, FIR came to be lodged against the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant had been to Pune for his personal work and he came to Shegaon by Maharashtra Express and reached Telhara at 12:30 pm on 16.5.2022. The applicant came to his clinic at 2:15 pm and was attending patients. While he was attending his other patients, he received a call by his sweeper informing him that a patient, whose name was not known to him, was sitting on a bench. In consultation with the wife of the applicant, who is also a medical professional, the said patient was allowed to take rest on bed kept adjoining the waiting area. At about 2:45 pm, after taking lunch, the applicant was examining his patients. He heard a noise of crowd from patients who were waiting in the waiting area and it revealed that the person who was taking rest in the nearby adjoining area of the waiting room had fallen down and, therefore, the applicant immediately rushed to him and examined him and found that he was already dead. Thereafter, he informed the police. It was found that the said person had succumbed to death. After doing necessary formalities, the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem.

It is submitted by learned couns

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top