High Court of MP Explains Path to Justice After Police Inaction on Complaint

Gwalior: The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has clarified the proper legal procedure for citizens seeking the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) when police fail to act on a complaint, while also reiterating the strict requirements for initiating criminal proceedings against medical professionals.

Justice G.S.Ahluwalia , presiding over a Miscellaneous Criminal Case, dismissed an application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which sought directions to police to register an FIR against doctors and family members following the death of the applicant's daughter.

The applicant, Jabar Singh Lodhi, alleged that his pregnant daughter died after an unnecessary cesarean operation performed by respondent doctors (respondent Nos. 3 & 4). He claimed his daughter had previously reported harassment by her husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law (respondent Nos. 5 to 7) over dowry demands (a Scorpio vehicle) and further harassment upon discovering she was carrying a female child. The applicant contended that the cesarean operation was unnecessarily done in connivance with the family members, leading to his daughter's death, but police had taken no action on his complaint.

The court examined the application seeking a police direction to register the FIR and arrest the accused, as well as a status report on a related "Marg" (inquest/initial inquiry).

Medical Negligence Requires Expert Opinion:

Addressing the allegations against the doctors (respondent Nos. 3 & 4), the Court highlighted the specific legal framework governing cases of alleged medical negligence. Justice Ahluwalia cited a string of Supreme Court judgments, including the landmark ruling in Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab (2005) and subsequent cases like Kusum Sharma and others vs. Batra Hospital (2010), Martin F. D'Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq (2009), Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee (2009), and S. K. Jhunjhunwala v. Dhanwanti Kaur (2019).

These judgments establish that medical negligence, particularly in the criminal context under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (causing death by negligence), requires a significantly higher degree of proof than civil negligence. Crucially, police cannot investigate or prosecute doctors for negligence unless and until a credible opinion from a committee of experts, preferably from government service, indicates a prima facie case of medical negligence applying the 'Bolam test'.

The court quoted from Jacob Mathew : "To prosecute a medical professional for negligence under criminal law it must be shown that the accused did something or failed to do something which in the given facts and circumstances no medical professional in his ordinary senses and prudence would have done or failed to do."

Based on this settled position, the High Court concluded that no direction could be given to the police to register an FIR against the doctors until a report from a Committee of Experts confirms medical negligence.

Proper Remedy When Police Fail to Register FIR:

Regarding the application seeking directions to register an FIR against the family members (respondent Nos. 5 to 7), the Court considered the maintainability of such a prayer in an application under Section 528 BNSS. The court referenced further Supreme Court decisions, including Aleque Padamsee and others vs. Union of India (2007), Divine Retreat Centre Vs. State of Kerala (2008), Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008), and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage (2016), as well as a Division Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Shweta Bhadauria Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (2016).

These precedents uniformly hold that if a person is aggrieved by the inaction of police officials in registering an FIR for a cognizable offence (as required by Section 154 of the relevant criminal procedure code), the correct legal course is not to approach the High Court through a writ petition or similar application for a direct order to register the FIR.

Instead, the aggrieved person must first approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of the Code. If this also fails, the statutory remedy is to file a complaint before the concerned Magistrate under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code (or Section 223 of BNSS), and the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance, direct the police to investigate under Section 156(3), and even monitor the investigation.

The court cited Sakiri Vasu : "if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR... then he can approach the Superintendent of Police... Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result... it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the learned Magistrate concerned." The Supreme Court has repeatedly warned that High Courts should not be flooded with writ petitions for FIR registration and complainants must utilize these alternative statutory remedies.

Applying this principle, the High Court held that the application seeking direction to register an FIR against the family members was not the proper legal course.

Conclusion:

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the application. It rejected the prayer for directing FIR registration against the doctors (respondent Nos. 3 & 4) due to the absence of an expert opinion on medical negligence. It also dismissed the prayer for directing FIR registration against the family members (respondent Nos. 5 to 7), granting the applicant the liberty to approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (or Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) to pursue his grievance against them.

The judgment underscores the importance of following the prescribed statutory procedures for initiating criminal cases when police fail to act and reinforces the specific protections afforded to medical professionals against unwarranted criminal prosecution without expert validation.