Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2765 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973). Dr. Sanjit Mohapatra …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Meru Sagar Samantaray, Adv. Mr. Pravash Chandra Jena, Adv. For Opposite Party (s) : Smt. Sarita Moharana, ASC Mr. Pravu Pityarthi Kumar Pandit, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-20.05.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-14.07.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in T.R. No. 103 of 2024, arising out of Balianta P.S. Case No. 94 of 2024, pending before the learned District and Sessions Judge (Special Court) under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bhubaneswar. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:09:00 Signature Not Verified Page 2 I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 1. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.02.2024, one Pramila Rout lodged a written report before the I.I.C., Balianta Police Station alleging, inter alia, that on 19.01.2023, one Kali Charan Das, son of Ramnath Das of Village Jamukunda, P.S. Baliapal, District Balasore, married her daughter, Lily Das, out of a love relationship. It was alleged that the in-laws of Lily Das, on account of her caste status, subjected her to severe cruelty. It was further alleged that although the informant used to provide monthly expenses to her daughter, the same was taken away by Kali Charan Das. When Lily Das protested, she was abused in obscene language with reference to her caste and community, and when the informant questioned him regarding such conduct, she too was allegedly abused in filthy language taking the name of her caste. (ii) It was further alleged that after about three months of marriage, Lily Das became pregnant, but Kali Charan Das allegedly took away the allowance provided by the Government of Odisha during her pregnancy. It was further alleged that on 27.09.2023, the informant took her daughter to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar. However, one ASHA worker, Prativa Rath, wife of Tukuna Rath of Bentapur, allegedly persuaded them to admit her to Jayadev Health Care, Bentapur, where on the night of Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:09:00 Signature Not Verified Page 3 27.09.2023 at about 09.16 P.M., Lily Das gave birth to a male child. (iii) It was further alleged that after about fifteen days of the operation, the surgical wound did not heal and became septic. The patient was again admitted to Jayadev Health Care, where the wound was dressed and she was discharged with medicines. Thereafter, she was again admitted to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar, and was referred to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. It was further alleged that on being contacted, Tapas Das, the owner of Jayadev Health Care, advised her to again admit the patient in his hospital. After such admission, the patient allegedly suffered severe pain and the surgical stitches reopened. It was further alleged that Tapas Das abused the informant and her daughter by referring to their caste and community, threatened them, and drove them out of the hospital. (iv) It was further alleged that on 28.12.2023, the patient was again admitted to Capital Hospital and on 07.01.2024 was referred to AIIMS, Bhubaneswar. It was alleged that after due treatment and diagnosis, the doctors opined that the serious condition of the patient was attributable to negligence at Jayadev Health Care and that cotton and gauze had been allegedly left inside the abdomen due to negligence of the doctor. It was further alleged that on 18.02.2024 at about 06.30 P.M., Lily Das Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:09:00 Signature Not Verified Page 4 succumbed to death due to infection arising from the unhealed wound. (v) It was further alleged that on 19.02.2024, Kali Charan Das reported the death to the police, but Tapas Das allegedly paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and obtained his signature on an affidavit to dissuade him from proceeding further in the matter. It was further alleged that when the informant objected, Tapas Das and Kali Charan Das threatened her with dire consequences. (vi) On the basis of the aforesaid written report, Balianta P.S. Case No. 94 of 2024 was registered for the alleged commission of offences and investigation was taken up. (vii) During the course of investigation, the petitioner, a medical practitioner specializing in Obstetrics and Gynaecology and stated to be the operating surgeon who had conducted the Caesarean delivery of the deceased at Jayadev Health Care, came under the purview of investigation. It is the prosecution case that complications allegedly arose subsequent to the said procedure. The petitioner was not named in the FIR but was subsequently implicated on the basis of materials collected during investigation. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceeding pending before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Special Court under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bhubaneswar. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:09:00 Signature Not Verified Page 5 II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner respectfully and earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The petitioner contended that the allegations levelled against him are false and baseless and that he is in no way connected with the offences alleged by the prosecution. It was further submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR and the materials collected during the course of investigation would reveal that there is not even an iota of evidence on record to prima facie establish the commission of the alleged offences against him. (ii) The petitioner contended that although the case was registered for several offences under the Indian Penal Code and other Special Acts, a perusal of the materials available on record would show that none of the ingredients of the alleged offences are, prima facie, satisfied against the petitioner. (iii) The petitioner further submitted that although his name does not find place in the body of the FIR, he has been compelled to file the present application in view of the allegations made against him. (iv) The petitioner submitted that he had performed the Caesarean surgery upon the deceased and apprehends that he may be proceeded against at any point of time in connection with the present case. (v) The petitioner further submitted that, according to the prosecution case itself, the informant's daughter gave birth to a Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:09:00 Signature Not Verified Page 6 male child after undergoing surgery at Jayadev Health Care and was discharged from the hospital thereafter. It was contended that subsequently, the deceased received treatment at Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar, and thereafter at AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, at different stages. Therefore, the petitioner asserted that it cannot be said that he committed any rash or negligent act, particularly when the deceased had undergone treatment at different hospitals during the course of her treatment. (vi) The petitioner contended that the doctor-patient relationship is founded on trust and that a medical practitioner, while performing a surgical procedure, is expected to act in good faith and with due care. It was further submitted that in the absence of any material showing gross negligence or rashness attributable to the petitioner, the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted. (vii) The petitioner further submitted that no specific allegation has been made against him with regard to any caste-based abuse or atrocity and that the materials available on record do not disclose the commission of any offence under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against him. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:09:00 Signature Not Verified Page 7 III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES : 3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the submission that the present CRLMC is not maintainable before this Court and deserves to be rejected in limine. (i) It was submitted that the present CRLMC application is misconceived, premature, devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. (ii) It was submitted that the prosecution case, as revealed from the FIR, the charge sheet and the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., clearly discloses a prima facie case of alleged gross medical negligence, post-operative neglect and culpable omission on the part of the petitioner, who admittedly conducted the Caesarean surgery of the deceased at Jayadev Health Care. It was further submitted that the petitioner has admitted that he was approached by the owner of Jayadev Health Care to conduct the Caesarean surgery of the deceased and that he had performed the said operation. It was contended that, in view of such admission, the petitioner cannot now contend that he is in no way connected with the alleged offences. (iii) It was further submitted that the contention raised by the petitioner that there is "no iota of evidence" against him is contrary to the materials available on record. It was contended that the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. disclose that the petitioner conducted the surgery on the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:09:00 Signature Not Verified Page 8 deceased, after which she allegedly developed severe post- operative complications, the surgical wound became septic and her condition continuously deteriorated until her death during treatment at AIIMS, Bhubaneswar. It was further submitted that the statements of the complainant, Pramila Rout, and the witness, Ranjan Bhoi, reveal that after the Caesarean operation, the stitched portion became infected and painful, necessitating repeated hospitalization, and that despite the deteriorating condition of the deceased, proper medical management and timely intervention were allegedly not provided. It was further submitted that the statements of CEO Arati Biswal and ANM Sonali Nayak disclose that the petitioner was the operating doctor and had participated in the surgery along with the OT team and that his role in the treatment of the deceased is borne out from the materials available in the case diary. (iv) It was submitted that the petitioner has attempted to mislead this Court by contending that the deceased was discharged in a healthy condition and, therefore, no offence under Section 304- A of the IPC is made out. It was contended that mere discharge of a patient after surgery cannot, by itself, absolve the operating surgeon of criminal liability where subsequent complications are alleged to have arisen due to a negligent surgical procedure, improper sterilization, deficient post- operative care or failure to ensure appropriate follow-up treatment. It was further submitted that the materials collected Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:09:00 Signature Not Verified Page 9 during investigation reveal a continuous chain of events between the Caesarean surgery conducted at Jayadev Health Care and the subsequent complications suffered by the deceased, which ultimately resulted in her death during treatment at AIIMS, Bhubaneswar. It was further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the deceased subsequently underwent treatment at other hospitals and, therefore, no negligence can be attributed to him, is legally untenable, as subsequent treatment at Capital Hospital and AIIMS cannot, at this stage, negate the alleged consequences arising from the surgery and post-operative management at Jayadev Health Care. It was further submitted that the plea of the petitioner that he was unaware of the deteriorating condition of the deceased after discharge cannot absolve him of responsibility, as an operating surgeon cannot evade liability merely by claiming ignorance of post-operative complications arising out of a surgery admittedly conducted by him. It was further submitted that although the petitioner has relied upon the statements of Sonali Nayak and Arati Biswal to contend that subsequent treatment was undertaken by others, the said statements themselves indicate that the surgical wound required reopening and repeated dressing due to post- operative complications. (v) It was further submitted that the reliance placed by the petitioner upon the alleged affidavit of the complainant Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:09:00 Signature Not Verified Page 10 expressing no grievance against him cannot be a ground for quashing the criminal proceeding, particularly when the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC concerns public justice and societal interest and cannot be nullified merely on the basis of a compromise or subsequent understanding between the parties. (vi) It was submitted that the Supreme Court has consistently held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court is not required to conduct a mini trial or undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence and that, where disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence are involved, the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. ought not to be exercised. (vii) It was further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that he was not named in the FIR is legally unsustainable, since it is well settled that an FIR is not an encyclopedia and the name of an accused may surface during the course of investigation on the basis of materials subsequently collected by the Investigating Agency. It was contended that during investigation, the role of the petitioner as the operating surgeon emerged from the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and the medical materials collected during investigation, pursuant to which charge sheet has been submitted against him. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:09:00 Signature Not Verified Page 11 (viii) It was further submitted that although the medical profession is undoubtedly a noble one, the same does not grant immunity from criminal prosecution where the materials, prima facie, disclose rashness, negligence or omission resulting in the death of a patient. It was contended that the questions as to whether the petitioner acted with gross negligence, whether there was any deficiency in the surgical procedure or post-operative care, and whether such acts contributed to the death of the deceased, are matters requiring a full-fledged trial, expert evidence and appreciation of medical records and, therefore, cannot be adjudicated in a proceeding under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (ix) It was further submitted that the charge sheet reveals that, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Agency collected treatment records and expert medical opinion indicating that cotton or gauze had allegedly remained inside the abdominal cavity of the deceased during the Caesarean surgery conducted at Jayadev Health Care, which subsequently caused septic infection and deterioration of her condition. It was further submitted that the chronology of events emerging from the case diary discloses a sequence connecting the surgery conducted by the petitioner with the eventual death of the deceased. Reliance was also placed on Letter No. 1745/ACP- Zone-IV, Bhubaneswar dated 05.06.2025 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Zone-IV, Bhubaneswar UPD and the Final Report and opinion of the Medical Board Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:09:00 Signature Not Verified Page 12 communicated vide Letter No. 2180 dated 23.06.2025 issued by the Office of the DMO-cum-Superintendent, DHH, Khordha, to contend that a surgical mop or gauze had allegedly been left inside the abdominal cavity of the deceased during the surgery. It was further submitted that the Medical Board, relying upon the opinion of Dr. P. K. Singh, Associate Professor, Department of Surgery, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, opined that the retained surgical mop or gauze caused perforation of internal organs, fecal contamination, septic shock, septicaemia, multiorgan failure and acute kidney injury, ultimately contributing to the death of the patient. It was contended that the documentary and expert medical evidence collected during investigation, prima facie, disclose gross negligence on the part of the petitioner and a nexus between the alleged negligent act and the death of the deceased. (x) It was further submitted that the prosecution materials disclose sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner and that the learned Court below has rightly taken cognizance of the offences. It was contended that the present petition has been filed only with an intention to prematurely terminate the criminal proceeding and avoid trial despite the existence of materials against the petitioner. It was further submitted that quashing the criminal proceeding at this preliminary stage would seriously prejudice the prosecution case and defeat the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:09:00 Signature Not Verified Page 13 administration of criminal justice in a matter involving death allegedly arising out of medical negligence. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 4. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. 5. The limited question which falls for consideration in the instant case is whether the FIR, the charge sheet and the materials collected during investigation, taken at their face value, disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. 6. The scope of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) is well settled. Though the power conferred upon this Court is wide, it is required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. While exercising such jurisdiction, the High Court does not undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact as if conducting a mini trial. 7. The aforesaid principles stand crystallised in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal1, wherein the Supreme Court illustrated the categories of cases in which interference may be warranted. It was observed as follows: 1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:09:00 Signature Not Verified Page 14 “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:09:00 Signature Not Verified Page 15 no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 8. This principle has been reiterated in Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh2, wherein it was observed that it is improper to quash proceedings under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code when there are serious triable allegations in the complaint. 9. Further, in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat3, the Supreme Court clarified that there is no absolute embargo on the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction merely because the investigation is at a nascent stage. Whether interference is warranted depends upon the facts of each case and, in particular, whether the allegations and the materials placed before the Court disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. 10. At this juncture, it would also be appropriate to note the observations of the Supreme Court in Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi4, wherein it 2 (2021) 9 SCC 35. 3 (2026) 1 SCC 721. 4 (2007) 12 SCC 369. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:09:00 Signature Not Verified Page 16 was held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not open to the High Court to rely upon the report of the investigating agency or direct that such report be submitted before it. The Court observed that the report of the investigating agency is liable to be accepted or rejected by the Magistrate upon consideration of the material on record and, therefore, the same cannot be relied upon by the High Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. 11. In the present case, since the petitioner is a medical practitioner against whom allegations of medical negligence have been levelled, the principles governing criminal prosecution of medical professionals also assume significance. It is trite that criminal liability cannot be fastened upon a doctor merely because an adverse medical outcome has occurred. In this regard, in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab5 the Supreme Court adopted the Bolam test, originally laid down in Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee6, as applicable in India. Under the said test, the conduct of a medical professional is to be judged by the standard of an ordinarily competent practitioner professing to possess and exercising the ordinary skill expected in that particular branch of medicine and not by the standard of a layperson. A medical professional may be held liable only where he either did not possess the requisite skill which he professed to possess or failed to exercise, with reasonable competence, 5 2005 (6) SCC 1. 6 (1957) 1 WLR 582. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:09:00 Signature Not Verified Page 17 the skill which he did possess. The law does not require the highest degree of professional skill or expertise but only the ordinary skill and care expected of a reasonably competent practitioner in the relevant field. 12. Similarly, in Martin F. D'Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq,7 the Supreme Court reiterated that a medical practitioner cannot be held negligent merely because the treatment did not produce the desired result or the surgery proved unsuccessful. It was further held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur cannot be mechanically invoked in cases of alleged medical negligence to fasten liability merely because an adverse medical outcome has occurred. 13. In the light of the aforesaid principles, the specific facts and circumstances of the present case are now required to be examined. It is not in dispute that the petitioner admittedly conducted the Caesarean surgery of the deceased at Jayadev Health Care. 14. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the deceased was discharged in a healthy condition and thereafter underwent treatment at Capital Hospital and AIIMS, Bhubaneswar and, therefore, no criminal liability can be attributed to him. The petitioner further contends that his name did not find place in the FIR and that the materials collected during investigation do not disclose the commission of any offence against him. 15. A bare perusal of the FIR, the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the other materials placed on 7 (2009) 3 SCC 1. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:09:00 Signature Not Verified Page 18 record prima facie discloses that the petitioner was the operating surgeon who conducted the Caesarean delivery of the deceased. The materials further indicate that following the surgery, the deceased developed post-operative complications, the surgical wound became septic, she underwent repeated hospitalization and ultimately succumbed during treatment at AIIMS, Bhubaneswar. 16. It is reiterated that at this stage, this Court is not required to determine whether the aforesaid allegations are ultimately proved. The limited question is whether the uncontroverted prosecution material discloses a prima facie case warranting continuation of the criminal proceeding. 17. This Court is unable to accept the submission that the subsequent treatment of the deceased at Capital Hospital and AIIMS, Bhubaneswar absolves the petitioner of criminal liability. Whether the complications ultimately resulting in the death of the deceased were attributable to any negligent act or omission on the part of the petitioner are matters requiring appreciation of the specific facts and circumstances in light of the medical evidence and expert opinion. Such disputed questions cannot be adjudicated in a proceeding under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 18. Further, the mere fact that the petitioner was not named in the FIR does not entitle him to quashing of the criminal proceeding. An FIR is merely the document which sets the criminal law in motion and is not expected to contain an exhaustive account of the occurrence or the names of every person allegedly involved. The involvement of an accused may legitimately emerge during the course of investigation Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:09:00 Signature Not Verified Page 19 on the basis of the materials collected by the investigating agency. In the present case, the petitioner's role as the operating surgeon is stated to have emerged during investigation from the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the other materials placed on record. It is also noted that the investigation culminated in the collection of expert medical opinion indicating that a retained surgical mop or gauze inside the abdominal cavity resulted in septic complications which ultimately contributed to the death of the deceased. Without expressing any opinion on the correctness or evidentiary value of the said opinion, this Court finds that it constitutes material which cannot be disregarded at this stage while considering whether a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. Whether the petitioner failed to exercise the degree of skill and care expected of an ordinarily competent medical practitioner, and whether any such lapse had a causal nexus with the death of the deceased, are matters which necessarily require appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, including expert medical opinion. These are issues which fall within the domain of the trial Court and cannot be conclusively determined at this stage. V. CONCLUSION: 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the materials placed on record disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner. The contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner raise disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence, which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of the inherent Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2026 15:09:00 Signature Not Verified Page 20 jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 20. Accordingly, no case for interference is made out. The CRLMC is, therefore, dismissed. 21. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not influence the learned trial Court while deciding the case on its own merits. 22. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 14th July, 2026/ CUTTACK