[2025:RJ-JP:43439] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1561/2018 Pukhraj S/o Shri Julmi Ram, aged about 53 years, R/o Khedli Gurjar, Police Station Hindon, District Karuli. ----Complainant/Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through P.P. 2. Dr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, Medical Officer & Prabhari Government Primary Health Center, Mahuibrahimpur. 3. Vijay Lakshmi, Supervisor, Primary Health Center, Mahuibrahimpur. 4. Saarika, Nurse, Primary Health Center, Mahuibrahimpur. 5. Sumitra Sarawat, A.N.M. Khedli Gurjar, presently posted Primary Health Center, Mahuibrahimpur 6. Dinesh Kumar, Technician, Primary Health Center, Mahuibrahimpur. ----Accused-Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Pawan Kumar Verma Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 For Respondents No. 2 to 6 : : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat Public Prosecutor. Ms. Saroj Jat Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shafiqur Rahman Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 29/10/2025 1. In this criminal misc. petition, the petitioner- complainant has assailed order dated 02.08.2011 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun City, Karauli (hereinafter to be referred as 'the revisional court'), whereby, revision petition filed by the petitioner, against order dated 28.08.2009 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (JD) & [2025:RJ-JP:43439] (2 of 10) [CRLMP-1561/2018] Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Hindaun City, District Karauli (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner, has been rejected. 2. It is submitted that daughter-in-law of the petitioner, on being seriously ill, was got admitted in Primary Health Centre, Mahuibrahimpur on 30.08.2008. However, on account of not paying bribe of Rs. 500/- and by extending excuse of a meeting, daughter-in-law of the petitioner was not properly attended by Respondents No. 2 to 6-accused and she was referred to a hospital at Hindaun City for further treatment. On account of medical negligence committed by Respondents No. 2 to 6- accused, daughter-in-law of the petitioner died on 30.08.2008. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed criminal complaint before the trial court on 14.10.2008 whereupon statements under Sections 200 and 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’) were recorded by the trial court. After recording the statements, the matter was sent for further investigation through the police authorities and after report of enquiry, instead of taking cognizance against Respondents No. 2 to 6-accused under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as 'IPC'), vide order dated 28.08.2009, complaint was dismissed by the trial court. Being aggrieved by order dated 28.08.2009, the petitioner filed revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before the revisional court . However, revision petition has also been dismissed in mechanical manner by the revisional court vide order dated 02.08.2011. [2025:RJ-JP:43439] (3 of 10) [CRLMP-1561/2018] 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that for the purpose of taking cognizance on complaint, the Magistrate is simply required to examine the contents of the complaint as well as the material on record and not the defence of the accused. In the instant case, although allegations were specific in nature that only in the event of not fulfilling illegal demand of Rs. 500/-, daughter-in-law of the petitioner was not properly examined and treated by Respondent No. 2 to 6-accused, by taking into consideration irrelevant material, the trial court refused to take cognizance and dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner. Material illegality and irregularity committed by the trial court was pointed out by the petitioner by way of filing revision petition before the revisional court. However, even the revisional court has utterly failed to examine the jurisdiction vested in it and by recording perverse findings, revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the contents of complaint would reveal serious medical negligence on the part of Respondents No. 2 to 6-accused resulting in untimely death of daughter-in-law of the petitioner and denial of taking cognizance in such serious matter has caused miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondents-accused seriously opposed the criminal misc. petition by submitting that both the courts below have properly examined the facts of the case, material on record and law [2025:RJ-JP:43439] (4 of 10) [CRLMP-1561/2018] prevailing at the relevant time and have rightly dismissed the complaint as well as revision petition filed by the petitioner. 7. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that contention of the petitioner is unfounded that the learned trial court did not apply its judicious mind while rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner. In fact, opinion of medical experts as well as Chief Medical and Health Officer concerned was placed on record by the police authorities along with the enquiry report and since no negligence on the part of Respondents No. 2 to 6-accused was pointed out either in the report of Medical Baord or in the opinion of Chief Medical and Health Officer concerned, therefore, quite rightly case of medical negligence was not made out against the accused-respondents. Hence, learned trial court has rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner. 8. It was pointed out that revisional court, after meticulous examination of the enquiry report of the police authorities as well as the report of Medical Board and opinion of Chief Medical and Health Officer concerned, found that no jurisdictional error whatsoever was committed by the trial court in dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner-complainant and revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The allegations levelled against Respondents No. 2 to 6-accused in the complaint were principally regarding medical negligence allegedly committed by the accused during the treatment of petitioner's daughter-in-law. It has also come on [2025:RJ-JP:43439] (5 of 10) [CRLMP-1561/2018] record that before passing any order, the learned trial court got the complaint enquired into through the police authorities and along with enquiry report, report of Medical Board consisting of two medical experts as well as opinion of Chief Medical and Health Officer concerned was placed before the trial court. It has come on record that the medical board, after examining the record of treatment of petitioner's daughter-in-law, came to the conclusion that no negligence whatsoever was committed and necessary treatment was provided to her and thereafter, she was referred for further treatment to a better hospital at Hindaun. It needs to be emphasised that adjudication of cases involving allegation of medical negligence necessarily requires an understanding of line of treatment adopted and the degree of professional skill involved. Since judicial officers are not experts in the field of medicine, their assessment of such matters must be guided by expert medical opinion and material placed on record. Therefore, under such circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab & Another, (2005) 6 SCC 1 has observed that negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long he is performing his duties to the best of his ability with due care and caution. Hence, for the purpose of prosecuting professionals for medical negligence, balance is to be maintained between the interest of complainant/victim as well as accused. Hence, guidelines were provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that before prosecuting the medical professionals, report of Medical Board should be taken and further proceedings should be conducted in accordance with the report of Medical Board. Para [2025:RJ-JP:43439] (6 of 10) [CRLMP-1561/2018] No. 48, 50, 51 and 52 of the decision in the case of Jacob Mathew (supra), being relevant, are quoted hereinbelow: “48. We sum up our conclusions as under: (1) Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations   which   ordinarily   regulate   the   conduct   of human   affairs   would   do,   or   doing   something   which   a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The definition of negligence  as given  in Law of Torts,  Ratanlal  & Dhirajlal (edited   by   Justice   G.P.   Singh),   referred   to   hereinabove, holds good. Negligence becomes actionable on account of injury   resulting   from   the   act   or   omission   amounting   to negligence attributable to the person sued. The essential components of negligence are three: “duty”, “breach” and “resulting damage”. (2)   Negligence   in   the   context   of   the   medical   profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness   or  negligence   on   the  part  of  a  professional,   in particular a doctor, additional considerations apply. A case of   occupational   negligence   is   different   from   one   of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative   course   or   method   of   treatment   was   also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed. When it comes to the failure of taking precautions, what has to be seen is whether those precautions were taken which the ordinary experience of men has found to be sufficient; a failure to use special or extraordinary precautions which might have prevented the particular happening cannot be the standard for judging the alleged   negligence. So   also,   the   standard   of   care,   while assessing the practice as adopted, is judged in the light of knowledge available at the time of the incident, and not at the date of trial. Similarly, when the charge of negligence arises out of failure to use some particular equipment, the charge   would   fail   if   the   equipment   was   not   generally available at that particular time (that is, the time of the incident) at which it is suggested it should have been used. (3) A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings: either he was not possessed  of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices. A highly   skilled   professional   may   be   possessed   of   better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence. [2025:RJ-JP:43439] (7 of 10) [CRLMP-1561/2018] (4)   The   test   for   determining   medical   negligence   as   laid down   in Bolam  v.   Friern   Hospital   Management   Comittee, case (1957) 1 WLR 582, WLR at p. 586 [Ed.: Also at All ER p. 121 D-F and set out in para 19, p. 19 herein.] holds good in its applicability in India. (5) The jurisprudential concept of negligence differs in civil and criminal law. What may be negligence in civil law may not necessarily be negligence in criminal law. For negligence to amount to an offence, the element of mens rea must be shown to exist. For an act to amount to criminal negligence, the degree of negligence should be much higher i.e. gross or of a very high degree. Negligence which is neither gross nor of a higher degree may provide a ground for action in civil law but cannot form the basis for prosecution. (6) The word “gross” has not been used in Section 304-A IPC,   yet   it   is   settled   that   in   criminal   law   negligence   or recklessness, to be so held, must be of such a high degree as to be “gross”. The expression “rash or negligent act” as occurring in Section 304-A IPC has to be read as qualified by the word “grossly”. (7)   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. The hazard taken by the accused doctor should be of such a nature   that   the   injury   which   resulted   was   most   likely imminent. (8) Res ipsa loquitur is only a rule of evidence and operates in the domain of civil law, specially in cases of torts and helps in determining the onus of proof in actions relating to negligence. It   cannot   be   pressed   in   service   for determining per   se the   liability   for   negligence   within   the domain of criminal law. Res ipsa loquitur has, if at all, a limited   application   in   trial   on   a   charge   of   criminal negligence. 50. As   we   have   noticed   hereinabove   that   the   cases   of doctors   (surgeons   and   physicians)   being   subjected   to criminal prosecution are on an increase. Sometimes such prosecutions   are   filed   by   private   complainants   and sometimes   by   the   police   on   an   FIR   being   lodged   and cognizance taken. The investigating officer and the private complainant cannot always be supposed to have knowledge of medical science so as to determine whether the act of the accused medical professional amounts to a rash or negligent act within the domain of criminal law under Section 304-A IPC. The   criminal   process   once   initiated   subjects   the medical   professional   to   serious   embarrassment   and sometimes   harassment. He   has   to   seek   bail   to   escape arrest, which may or may not be granted to him. At the end he may be exonerated by acquittal or discharge but the loss which   he   has   suffered   to   his   reputation   cannot   be compensated by any standards. 51. We may not be understood as holding that doctors can never be prosecuted for an offence of which rashness or negligence is an essential ingredient. All that we are doing is to emphasise the need for care and caution in the interest [2025:RJ-JP:43439] (8 of 10) [CRLMP-1561/2018] of society;  for, the  service  which  the  medical  profession renders to human beings is probably the noblest of all, and hence there is a need for protecting doctors from frivolous or unjust prosecutions. Many a complainant prefer recourse to criminal process as a tool for pressurising the medical professional   for   extracting   uncalled   for   or   unjust compensation. Such   malicious   proceedings   have   to   be guarded against. 52. Statutory rules or executive instructions incorporating certain   guidelines  need   to   be   framed   and   issued   by   the Government   of   India   and/or   the   State   Governments   in consultation with the Medical Council of India. So long as it is not done, we propose to lay down certain guidelines for the future which should govern the prosecution of doctors for   offences   of   which   criminal   rashness   or   criminal negligence is an ingredient. A private complaint may not be entertained   unless   the   complainant   has   produced prima facie evidence before the court in the form of a credible opinion given by another competent doctor to support the charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused doctor. The investigating officer should, before proceeding against   the   doctor   accused   of   rash   or   negligent   act   or omission,   obtain   an   independent   and   competent   medical opinion   preferably   from   a   doctor   in   government   service, qualified   in   that   branch   of   medical   practice   who   can normally   be  expected  to   give   an   impartial  and   unbiased opinion applying the Bolam test to the facts collected in the investigation. A doctor accused of rashness or negligence, may not be arrested in a routine manner (simply because a charge has been levelled against him). Unless his arrest is necessary for furthering the investigation or for collecting evidence or unless the investigating officer feels satisfied that the doctor proceeded against would not make himself available to face the prosecution unless arrested, the arrest may be withheld.” 11. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Vinod Shaily & Another Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another (S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 7844/2024 & other connected matters decided on 05.05.2025) has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jacob Mathew (supra) and observed in the following manner: "12. It is a trite proposition that when a duly constituted medical  board   comprising   domain   experts   has   opined against  the  existence  of negligence,  and when  no contra expert opinion has been produced to establish a reckless or impermissible departure from the standard of care, criminal prosecution  under  Section  105  BNS  cannot  be  sustained. The   law  requires  that   for   an   act   to   constitute   criminal medical   negligence,   it  must   transcend   mere   error   of [2025:RJ-JP:43439] (9 of 10) [CRLMP-1561/2018] judgment   and   amount  to   a  gross   dereliction   of   duty, evidencing either mens rea or an utter disregard for patient safety-a threshold not satisfied in the instant case. 13. Having   regard   to   the   allegations   made   and   the circumstances surrounding the demise of the complainant's daughter-in-law,  this   Court   is   conscious   of   the   settled position   of   law   pertaining  to   allegations   of   medical negligence   which   may   give   rise   to   criminal  culpability. A mere  adverse  outcome of a medical procedure  does not, ipso   facto,   constitute   medical   negligence. A   private complainant,   lacking   in   medical   expertise,   cannot conclusively   impute   criminal   negligence   to   a   medical practitioner solely on the basis of an unfortunate result or post-operative   deterioration. The   domain   of   medical negligence   squarely   falls   within   the   realm   of   expert knowledge,   and   the   threshold   for   initiating   criminal prosecution   against   medical   professionals   is   placed significantly   high   to   protect   bona   fide   medical   judgment from frivolous or misconceived litigation. 14. In the present matter, it is evident that the medical procedure   carried   out   upon   the   deceased   was   indeed preceded and followed by complications, as narrated in the complaint. However,   this   Court   finds   it   imperative   to evaluate whether the conduct of the medical practitioners crosses the threshold from civil negligence into the domain of gross or criminal negligence under Section 304 IPC or Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, as alleged. 18. While the Court acknowledges the petitioner's anguish and  the  tragic  loss  suffered,   it  is  well  settled  that  penal consequences under the criminal justice system must flow only   from   established   culpability   supported   by   cogent evidence,   not   from   conjecture   or   mere   suspicion. The invocation of Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (akin to Section 304 IPC) necessitates a stringent degree of proof of gross negligence or recklessness with knowledge of likely fatal consequences-something that is palpably absent in the instant case in view of the committee's findings." 12. As noticed hereinabove, in the instant case also, opinion of the Medial Board as well as opinion of Chief Medical and Health Officer concerned has been duly cosidered by the trial court and since as per the opinion of medical experts, no negligence was caused in the treatment of daughter-in-law of the petitioner, quite rightly, no cognizable offence was mae out against Respondents No. 2 to 6-accused. Therefore, no error whatsoever has been committed by the trial court in dismissing the complaint filed by the petitinoer. Revisional court has also [2025:RJ-JP:43439] (10 of 10) [CRLMP-1561/2018] properly examined the order of the trial court and report of the Medical Board as also opinion of Chief Medical and Health Officer concerned while dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 13. In the light of above discussion, there is no scope of interference by this Court while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 14. Hence, instant criminal misc. petition is, hereby, dismissed. 15. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J MANOJ NARWANI /37