1 2025:CGHC:55070-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2382 of 2025 Dr. Sudhanshu Kiran, (M.D.) (Medicine) S/o Late Dadan Chaudhari, Aged About 41 Years R/o Shri Mahaveer Hospital, Near Sai Mandir, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Gandhinagar, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) 2 - Neeraj Verma, S/o Late Shri R.R. Verma, R/o Mayor Colony, Sai Mandir Road, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. T.K.Jha, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12/11/2025 1 Heard Mr. T.K.Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Sanjeev Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2 By this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNSS), the petitioner seeks quashing of the 2 order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur in Criminal Complaint Case No. 4449/2025 by which the complaint case >led by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) has been allowed and the Police of Police Station, Gandhinagar has been directed to register FIR against the petitioner upon which Crime No. 400/2025 has been registered for the o@ences under Sections 270 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code. 3 The case of the prosecution, in brief is that the respondent No. 2 >led a complaint case under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, alleging that the respondent owns a Hospital by name Shri Mahavir Hospital and is a Doctor by profession. The daughter of the respondent No. 2 Ku. Anchal Verma was admitted in the Hospital of the petitioner in serious condition as she was diagnosed with Typhoid and Dengue and since the platelet count was decreasing, blood transfusion was required to be done and as such, two units of blood was required. During the course of treatment, some verbal duel took place between the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner, and as per the prosecution, the petitioner misbehaved with the respondent No. 2. It is further alleged that the documents/prescription and the records relating to the treatment of the daughter of respondent No. 2 was not given even on demanding. Denial to treating the patient even after availability of all the facilities by the petitioner was unethical and against the norms of the profession of a Doctor. According to the complainant/respondent No. 2, such act of the petitioner falls under Section 270 of the IPC. Further, the unparliamentary language used by the petitioner just to humiliate and disrespect him also falls under Section 294 and 500 of the IPC. 3 4 Mr. T.K.Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are totally baseless and false. In fact, there was lack of bed as there were only 2 beds in casualty which were full and as such, the petitioner had advised the respondent No. 2 to wait for some time so that as soon as the bed gets vacant, her daughter may be given a bed but instead of waiting, the respondent No. 2 started misbehaving with the petitioner and himself asked to discharge his daughter. The respondent No. 2 made written complaint at Police Station, Gandhinagar, but the same was not registered as no substance was found in the said complaint. As such, the respondent No. 2 >led a complaint case under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate seeking registration of the FIR against the petitioner. Mr. Jha submits that if no bed was available in his hospital, the same cannot constitute any o@ence and the respondent No. 2 has unnecessarily implicated the petitioner in a false case as such, order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the FIR bearing Crime No. 400/2025, deserves to be quashed. 5 On the other hand, Mr. Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that earlier the respondent No. 2 had tried to lodge and FIR against the petitioner, however, since there was no substance in his complaint, the same was not registered, however, since there was a direction by the learned Magistrate, the police has registered the FIR on 15.07.2025. He further submits that the petitioner has the remedy to approach the Court of Sessions, but the petitioner has rushed to this Court and as such, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4 6 Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the learned Magistrate, on >nding substance in the complaint >led by the respondent No. 2, has directed the police to register and FIR against the petitioner which is just and proper and as such, no interference is warranted at this stage and this petition deserves to be dismissed. 7 We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8 From perusal of the pleadings and the materials available on record, it appears that some verbal duel took place between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 with respect to availability of bed for the ailing daughter of the respondent No. 2. From the documents appended with the petition, it transpires that the petitioner had treated the patient the way he could. It is not a case where because of any negligence on the part of the petitioner, the patient had sustained any loss or caused any damage. The version of the respondent No. 2 that the petitioner misbehaved with him and denied to treat his daughter, appears to be an exaggerated version and as such, we are of the considered opinion that the order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, directing the police to register an FIR against the petitioner, was unwarranted. 9 The Supreme Court, in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Another, {(2005) 6 SCC 1}, while dealing with a similar issue, has issued guidelines with regard to prosecuting medical professionals, at paragraphs 50, 51 and 52, which reads as under: “Guidelines re: prosecuting medical professionals 50. As we have noticed hereinabove that the cases of doctors (surgeons and physicians) being subjected to criminal 5 prosecution are on an increase. Sometimes such prosecutions are led by private complainants and sometimes by the police on an FIR being lodged and cognizance taken. The investigating o&cer 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 rash or negligent act within the domain of criminal law under Section 304-A of 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 su0ered 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 o0ence of which rashness or negligence is an essential ingredient. All that we are doing is to emphasize the need for care and caution in the interest 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 prefers recourse to criminal process as a tool for pressurizing 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 o@ences 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 oFcer should, 6 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, quali>ed in that branch of medical practice who can normally be expected to give an impartial and unbiased opinion applying the Bolam's 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 investigation oFcer feels satis>ed that the doctor proceeded against would not make himself available to face the prosecution unless arrested, the arrest may be withheld.” 10 In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in light of what has been said in Jacob Mathew (supra), no e@ort has been made to obtain an independent and competent medical opinion from a doctor in government service, quali>ed in that branch of medical practice who can normally be expected to give an impartial and unbiased opinion and the impugned FIR has been lodged straightaway against the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to quash the order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur and the FIR bearing Crime No. 400/2025 registered at Police Station, Ambikapur Dehat (Gandhinagar) for the o@ences under Sections 270 and 294 of the IPC, are quashed. Consequently, the complaint case >led by the respondent No. 2 also stands rejected. 12. As a result, this petition stands allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.11.13 12:47:26 +0530