Kanti Lahariya vs Dinesh Kumar Sharma

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(MP) 82

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Kanti Lahariya (Dr.) & Others v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma & Others
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 14792 of 2025 (Gwalior); Decided on 5.5.2025

Advocates:
Vijay Dutta Sharma for applicants; Respondent No. 1 in person;
Mohit Shivhare, Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 2/State.

Headnote:
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 -- Ss. 528 and 175(3) -- quashing of complaint -- medical negligence -- merely because complainant is of view that Dr. Rohit Khandelwal has not treated his daughter-in-law, inference cannot be drawn that medical prescriptions written by Dr. Rohit Khandelwal were not written by him and were prepared at later stage -- So far as manipulation of record to the effect that time of giving consent for transfusion was changed from 4:40 pm to 4:10 pm is concerned, said consent was given by son of complainant but complaint is not supported by his affidavit -- except saying that deceased was not treated properly and there was medical negligence on the part of applicants, nothing else has been submitted by complainant to show that there was any medical negligence -- it is nowhere mentioned in enquiry report that treatment was not in accordance with medical protocol or medical science -- Held -- there is nothing on record to suggest that applicants were negligent in any manner in treating deceased -- Held Further -- complainant sought registration of FIR against applicants but did not implead them with solitary intention to obtain order for registration of FIR behind their back -- application u/s. 175(3) dismissed -- liberty granted to complainant to approach Medical Council of India for constitution of committee of expert doctors to conduct enquiry into allegation of medical negligence and interpolation of records. (2005) 6 SCC 1, (2010) 3 SCC 480, (2009) 3 SCC 1, (2009) 9 SCC 221, (2019) 2 SCC 282 and 2024 (1) MPLJ 1 2023 (4) JLJ 355 (SC) followed. AIR 2001 SC 3524, [2021] 4 SCR 1044, CRM-M No. 3458 of 2015 decided on 11.3.2024, M. Cr. C. No. 5402 of 2025 decided on 2.4.2025, [2013] 14 SCR 713, SLP (Cr.) No. 5883 of 2020 decided on 8.8.2023, M/s SAS Infratech Criminal Appeal No. 2574 of 2024 decided on 14.5.2024 and [2019] 15 SCR 936 referred to. [Paras 17 to 26]
ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk] 2023 & /kkjk 528 rFkk 175¼3½ & ifjokn dk vfHk[kaMu & fpfdRlh; mis{kk ek= blfy, fd ifjoknh dh –f"V esa M‚- jksfgr [kaMsyoky us mldh iq=o/kq dk mipkj ugha fd;k] ;g fu"d"kZ ugha fudkyk tk ldrk fd MkW- jksfgr [kaMsyoky }kjk fy[ks x, fpfdRlh; mipkji=d muds }kjk ugha fy[ks x, Fks rFkk ijorhZ çØe ij rS;kj fd, x, Fks tgk¡ rd vfHkys[k ds bl çHkko ds Nylk/ku dk laca/k gS fd jäk/kku ds fy, lgefr nsus dk le; vijkg~u 4%40 ls ifjofrZr dj vijkg~u 4%10 fd;k x;k] mä lgefr ifjoknh ds iq= }kjk nh xbZ Fkh ijarq ifjokn mlds 'kiFki= ls lefFkZr ugha & ;g dgus ds flok; fd e`rdk dk mfpr mipkj ugha fd;k x;k vkSj vkosndx.k dh vksj ls fpfdRlh; mis{kk dh xbZ Fkh] ifjoknh }kjk ;g n'kkZus ds fy, vU; dqN is'k ugha fd;k x;k fd dksbZ fpfdRlh; mis{kk Fkh & tk¡p çfrosnu esa dgha mfYyf[kr ugha fd mipkj fpfdRlh; u;kpkj ;k fpfdRlk foKku ds vuqlkj ugha Fkk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & vfHkys[k ij ;g lq>kus ds fy, dqN ugha fd vkosndx.k us e`rdk ds mipkj esa mis{kkiw.kZ Fks & vkxs vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ifjoknh us vkosnx.k ds fo:) çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ iath—r fd, tkus dh bZIlk dh ijarq mudh ihB-ihNs çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ ds iathdj.k dk vkns'k vfHkçkIr djus ds ,dek= vk'k; ls mUgsa i{kdkj ugha cuk;k & /kkjk 175¼3½ ds v/khu vkosnu [kkfjt & ifjoknh dks fpfdRlh; mis{kk vkSj vfHkys[kksa ds ç{ksi.k ds vfHkdFku dh tk¡p djus ds fy, fo'ks"kK fpfdRldksa dh lfefr ds xBu ds fy, Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ tkus dh Lora=rk nh xbZA ¼2005½ 6 ,llhlh 1] ¼2010½ 3 ,llhlh 480] ¼2009½ 3 ,llhlh 1] ¼2009½ 9 ,llhlh 221] ¼2019½ 2 ,llhlh 282 rFkk 2023 ¼4½ ts,yts 355 ¼mPpre U;k;ky;½ vuqlfjrA ,vkbvkj 2001 ,llh 3524] 2021 ¼4½ ,llhvkj 1044] lhvkj ,e-,e Øekad 3458 lu~ 2015 fu.khZr fnukad 11-3-2024] çdh.kZ nkafMd ekeyk Øekad 5402 lu~ 2025 fu.khZr fnukad 2-4-2025] 2013 ¼14½ ,llhvkj 713] fo'ks"k btktr ;kfpdk ¼nkafMd½ Øekad 5883 lu~ 2020 fu.khZr fnukad 8-8-2023- nkafMd vihy Øekad 2574 lu~ 2024 fu.khZr fnukad 14-5-2024 rFkk 2019 ¼15½ ,llhvkj 936 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 17 ls 26½

ORDER

1. This application, under section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023, has been filed against order dated 28.3.2025 passed by IX Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior (M.P.) in Criminal Revision No.83/2025 as well as order dated 19.2.2025 passed by JMFC, Gwalior in Unregistered Complaint Case No.0/2024.

2. It is the case of respondent No.1 that on 1.1.2024 he brought his daughter-in-law, who was due for delivery, to the clinic of Dr. Kanti Lahariya. She was admitted in the Sarvodaya Hospital, Gwalior on 1.1.2024 on the advice of Dr. Kanti Lahariya. Initially, Super Deluxe Room No.4 was allotted to her but later on she was shifted to Super Delux Room No.2. Daughter-in-law of respondent No.1 remained hospitalized from 1.1.2024 to 3.1.2024 and the cesarean operation was performed by the applicants on 2.1.2024 and it is alleged that on account of negligence of Dr. Kanti Lahariya and Dr. Prashant Lahariya and their associate doctors, wrong treatment was given. On 2.1.2024, plasma was transfused in an incorrect manner. The plasma was given at about 05:05 pm and first unit was transfused within a period of ten minutes. When a query was made by complainant, then he was informed by Dr. Kanti Lahariya that one unit of plasma is always transfused within 10 to 15 minutes. Thereafter, second unit was transfused within 15 minutes and thereafter when third unit of Plasma was being transfused then certain injections were given to his daughter-inlaw. Thereafter, his daughter-in-law started feeling pain in her chest and difficulty in breathing and she started getting restless. Thereafter, Dr. Kanti Lahariya, Dr. Prashant Lahariya and their associate doctors informed that his daughter-in-law has suffered serious side effect of treatment and in case if cesarean operation is not performed immediately, then life of his daughter-in-law and her child would be in jeopardy. Accordingly, cesarean operation was performed by Dr. Kanti Lahariya and her associate doctors in a haste. After the operation, it was informed by doctor that on account of reaction even the child is facing difficulty in breathing and therefore he is required to be admitted in NICU of Link Hospital. Accordingly, on the advise of Dr. Kanti Lahariya and Dr. Atul Goswami, grandchild of complainant was hospitalized in Link Hospital where he remained hospitalized from 2.1.2024 to 13.1.2024. The daughter-in-law of complainant was shifted to Super Deluxe Room No.4. Whenever complainant enquired from Dr. Kanti Lahariya about his daughter-in-law and grand-child, then he was informed that both are hale and hearty and they would be required to remain under medical supervision for 36 to 72 hours. However, the treatment of his daughter-in-law was not done properly. On 3.1.2024, Dr. Kanti Lahariya and Dr. Prashant Lahariya made the complainant and his son fool by saying that there is shortage of blood. Later on, daughter-in-law of complainant was referred to Birla Hospital. When complainant reached Birla Hospital, Gwalior, then after examining his daughter-in-law, it was informed that she has suffered multipleorgan failure and ultimately she died in Birla Hospital on 15.1.2024.

3. It is submitted that complainant tried to give the aforesaid complaint to the police authorities but they refused to accept the same, accordingly, he sent the complaint to various authorities, details of which have been mentioned in the application filed under section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023. It is submitted that when no action was taken by police then complainant filed an application under section 175(3) BNSS, 2023 before the Court of JMFC, Gwalior. The JMFC, Gwalior, by order dated 19.2.2025 passed in Unregistered Complaint Case No.0/2024 allowed the application and directed the Police to register the FIR. Being aggrieved by the said order, applicants preferred a revision, which too has been dismissed by the Revisional Court by order dated 28.3.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No.83/2025.

4. Challenging the orders passed by the Cou