IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.
Dr. Ravi Ganesh Bharadwaj & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Ranjit Sarkar – Respondent
CRR 2327 of 2018
Decided On : 17-09-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of complaint against medical professionals. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding medical negligence standards. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. respondent’s arguments on sufficient grounds for complaint. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court examines the issuance of process. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. court's analysis on necessity of inquiry before issuance of process. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. conclusion to remit the case for fresh consideration by the magistrate. (Para 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT :
Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.
1. The petitioners herein have challenged the proceeding being complaint case no.2 of 2017 under section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, pending before learned judicial Magistrate 4th Court, Barrackpore, and have prayed for quashment of the same.
2. The aforesaid complaint case no. 2 of 2017 was initiated on the basis of the petition of complaint filed by opposite party herein interalia alleging commission of offence of causing death by negligence. The allegations levelled in the said complaint are interalia to the effect that on 10.07.2014 at about 4 p.m., the victim who was the son of the complainant /opposite party slipped and fell down on the stair case of his residence, as a result of which he developed severe pain in his abdomen and lower back. Considering the intensity of pain, he was admitted in the emergency department of ILS hospital (accused no.1) at about 6:28 p.m., when victims condition was stable. It is alleged that inspite of victims complain of abdominal tenderness and low back pain, the attending physician did not recommend any investigation of the abdomen. In the X-ray plate nothing remarkable was noticed except mild anterior wedging of D11 and D12 vertebral bodies but the attending doctors ignored the likelihood of damage and the impact to the adjoining upper abdominal organs of the fracture site like kidney renal vain, renal arteries, Adrenal gland etc. On the same day at about 7.p.m. the petitioner no.1 herein advised only CT scan and MRI of Dorso Lumbers Spine to examine only the bodily injury in the vertebral column but completely ignored the patient’s complain regarding pain in the abdomen. It is further alleged that there is absolutely no record of any medical management of any kind, not even a record of the ‘vital signs’ such as blood pressure, pulse, respiration rate etc. of the patient between the time of admission at 7 p.m., on 10.07.2014 and 8.30 a.m. on 11.07.2014. The condition of the patient went bad to worse towards all through the night, as he developed severe abdominal pain but the patient was not examined or treated by any doctor or nurse for the next nine hours and the next examination of the victim Indrajit was conducted only at 6.25 P.M. on 11.07.2014. It is alleged that due to the gross rash and negligent act of the doctors, victim succumbed to death on 12.08.2014 at 7:05 p.m. Thereafter the petitioners issued a vague and unlawful death certificate issued by the petitioner no.4, who was not the attending physician involved with the treatment of the victim. However, in the said death certificate it has been claimed that the manner of death is natural which according to the complainant is self-contradictory because neither “adrenal homorrage” nor “pulmonary embolism” nor “fracture of D12 vertebra” could be considered as natural death of patient.
3. Learned Magistrate upon receipt of the complaint was pleased to take cognizance upon the offence on 03.01.2017 and thereafter the complainant was examined under section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and upon perusal of the complaint, learned Magistrate was pleased to find out a prima facie case against the present petitioners under section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly issued process against the petitioners
4. Being aggrieved by the instant proceeding, Mr. Milon Mukherjee learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that no medical professional
Martin F D’ Souza Vs. Md. Ishfaque
Kusum Sharma & Ors. Vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre
A.S.V. Narayanan Rao Vs. Ratnamala
Dr. Jayshree Ujwal Ingole Vs. State of Maharashtra
Mrs. BL infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Rajwant Singh ors.
James Kunjwal Vs. State of Uttarkhand
Criminal negligence in medical cases requires a higher degree of care and thorough examination of facts by the magistrate to substantiate claims; an independent medical opinion is essential.
The necessity of obtaining a competent medical opinion before taking cognizance against a doctor in negligence cases is reaffirmed.
A negative final report does not bar further investigation and prosecution in cases of medical negligence requires substantial expert evidence.
The necessity of obtaining expert medical opinion before taking cognizance against a doctor in cases of alleged medical negligence is paramount to avoid wrongful prosecution.
Criminal prosecution for medical negligence requires evidence of gross negligence, not merely attendance during emergencies, and must be substantiated with expert testimony.
Medical professionals cannot be prosecuted for negligence unless there is gross negligence established through expert opinion; mere errors or lack of consent do not suffice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a prima facie evidence from a competent doctor before initiating prosecution for medical negligence and the necessity of a prel....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.