1 2026:CGHC:7007-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1463 of 2024 Dr. S. G. Ghatge S/o Gajanand Rao Ghatge Aged About 79 Years R/o Ward No. 5 Balram Talkies Ke Pass Nehru Nagar, Police Station Civil Line District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Kishore Jambulkar Sanjay Nagar, Talapara, Police Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Advocate For Respondent/State For Respondent No. 2 : : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 09/ 02/2026 1. At the very outset, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that although time was granted to file a reply, his client has not been responding, and therefore the reply could not be filed. However, as VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.02.11 20:03:03 +0530 2 Respondent No. 2 is duly represented through his counsel, Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate, service of notice upon him is deemed sufficient. Accordingly, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner, Dr. S. G. Ghatge, aged about 79 years, who was working as the Head of Bilasa Blood Bank, Bilaspur, seeking quashment of the entire charge-sheet arising out of Crime No. 5/2017 registered at Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur, and further seeking quashment of all consequential proceedings of Criminal Case No. 373/2017 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, for the alleged offence punishable under Section 304-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case, in brief, arises out of a complaint lodged by respondent No.2 alleging medical negligence in the treatment of his wife, late Smt. Payal Jambulkar, who expired on 14.04.2016, wherein the present petitioner has been arrayed as an accused along with other co- accused on the allegation that wrong blood was transfused to the deceased, leading to her death. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs:- “(i) It is, respectfully prayed that the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner may kindly be called from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.). 3 (ii) It is respectfully prayed before this Hon'ble Court that the First Information Report bearing Crime No. 5/2017, registered at Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur and the charge sheet filed against the petitioner for quashment of Criminal Case No. 373/2017 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1" Class, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) may kindly be set-aside. (iii) Any other relief/ relief's which this Hon'ble Court may thing fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case with cost of the petition may also please be granted to the petitioner.” 4. The facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings of the petition are that, the respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur alleging that his wife, late Smt. Payal Jambulkar, expired on 14.04.2016 due to alleged medical negligence committed during her treatment at Mariya Sahay Hospital, Tarbahar, Bilaspur. It was alleged that during the course of treatment, wrong blood was transfused to the deceased, which ultimately resulted in her death. It is not in dispute that no post-mortem examination was conducted after the death of the deceased and the complaint was lodged after a considerable lapse of time. 5. On the basis of the said complaint, Crime No. 5/2017 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 304-A read with Section 34 of 4 the Indian Penal Code against four persons, namely Dr. Shweta Sablani (Mishra), a Gynaecologist attached to Mariya Sahay Hospital; Neha Mourya, Staff Nurse of the said hospital; Abhay Kumar Yadav, Laboratory Technician working at Bilasa Blood Bank; and the present petitioner, Dr. S. G. Ghatge, who was working as the Head of Bilasa Blood Bank and possessed the requisite qualifications for the said post. 6. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Agency sought an expert opinion from the Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS), Bilaspur. A committee constituted by CIMS submitted its report, wherein it was indicated that wrong blood had been transfused to the deceased. However, the report did not attribute any specific or conclusive finding of gross medical negligence against the present petitioner. The report, in substance, indicated negligence on the part of the duty doctor and the staff nurse who carried out the blood transfusion, and it was also observed that no timely steps were taken to stop further transfusion despite disclosure of the fact that incompatible blood had been administered. 7. It further emerges from the record that the petitioner, being the Head of the Blood Bank, was not directly involved in the transfusion of blood to the deceased. The blood bags were issued from the Bilasa Blood Bank by the laboratory technician, and the blood groups were clearly mentioned on the blood bags. The actual transfusion of blood was carried out in the hospital by the treating doctor and the staff nurse. It is also the case of the petitioner that one of the members of the CIMS 5 committee had treated the deceased after she was referred to CIMS, giving rise to an apprehension of bias in the constitution of the expert committee. 8. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, against all the accused persons, including the present petitioner, for the offence under Section 304-A read with Section 34 of IPC, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 373/2017. Aggrieved by the filing of the charge- sheet and continuance of the criminal proceedings, the present petition has been filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashment of the FIR, the charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings insofar as the present petitioner is concerned. 9. It is also pertinent to note that one of the co-accused, namely Dr. Shweta Sablani (Mishra), had earlier approached this Court by filing CRMP No. 908/2017, which came to be allowed vide order dated 29.09.2023, whereby the entire criminal proceedings against her were quashed. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is wholly unwarranted, illegal and amounts to abuse of the process of law, inasmuch as there is no material on record to even prima facie indicate that the petitioner acted either rashly or negligently so as to attract the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the 6 petitioner was working merely as the Head of Bilasa Blood Bank and had no role whatsoever in the treatment of the deceased or in the actual transfusion of blood, which was admittedly carried out by the treating doctor and the staff nurse at Mariya Sahay Hospital. *******It is further submitted that the investigation itself suffers from serious legal infirmities. The expert report obtained from the Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS) is inconclusive in nature and does not attribute any specific finding of gross negligence against the petitioner. On the contrary, the report indicates negligence on the part of the duty doctor and the staff nurse who transfused the blood and failed to take corrective steps even after disclosure of the fact that incompatible blood had been administered. Learned counsel would submit that in the absence of a clear, categorical and reasoned medical opinion attributing gross negligence to the petitioner, the prosecution of a medical professional is impermissible in law. *******Learned counsel would further contend that it is a settled principle of law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, that before a doctor can be prosecuted for criminal negligence, there must be a credible medical opinion from a competent medical board supporting the charge of gross negligence. In the present case, no such opinion exists against the petitioner, and therefore, the essential pre-condition for prosecuting a medical professional under criminal law is conspicuously absent. 7 *******It is also argued that the petitioner, being a Blood Bank Officer, was not required, either in law or in medical practice, to administer blood transfusion to the patient. The blood bags were issued by the laboratory technician from the blood bank, and the blood groups were clearly mentioned on the blood bags. The responsibility of verifying compatibility and administering blood lay exclusively with the treating doctor and the trained staff nurse at the hospital. Hence, fastening criminal liability upon the petitioner merely because of his official designation is legally unsustainable. *******Learned counsel would further submit that the complaint was lodged after a considerable delay and no post-mortem examination was conducted, thereby depriving the prosecution of any scientific or forensic evidence to establish a causal link between the alleged act and the death of the deceased. In the absence of such material, the allegation that the death occurred due to medical negligence remains speculative and cannot form the basis of a criminal prosecution. *******It is further contended that one of the members of the CIMS expert committee had treated the deceased after she was referred to CIMS, rendering the committee report vulnerable on the ground of bias, as no person can be a judge in his own cause. Learned counsel submits that reliance upon such a tainted and inconclusive report further vitiates the entire prosecution. *******Learned counsel would also draw the attention of this Court to the fact that the co-accused, namely Dr. Shweta Sablani (Mishra), 8 against whom more direct allegations were levelled, has already been granted relief by this Court in CRMP No. 908/2017 vide order dated 29.09.2023, whereby the entire criminal proceedings against her were quashed. On the principle of parity, the petitioner, whose role is even more remote, is entitled to similar relief. *******Lastly, it is submitted that criminal negligence requires a much higher degree of culpability, namely gross negligence or recklessness, accompanied by mens rea, which is completely absent in the present case. Allowing the prosecution to continue against the petitioner would result in unnecessary harassment and would defeat the very object of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to protect medical professionals from frivolous criminal proceedings. Hence, it is prayed that the FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner be quashed. 11. Learned State counsel, opposing the petition, would submit that the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is devoid of merit and the same deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. It is contended that the investigation conducted by the police was fair, proper and in accordance with law, and upon completion of investigation, sufficient material was collected which prima facie discloses the commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. 9 *******It is further submitted that the investigation revealed that incompatible blood was transfused to the deceased, which is a serious lapse having direct nexus with the death of the patient. Learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner, being the Head of the Blood Bank, was responsible for ensuring that proper procedures and safeguards were followed in issuance and handling of blood and blood components. Any failure in the established protocol at the blood bank level cannot be brushed aside at the threshold and requires appreciation of evidence during trial. *******Learned State counsel would further submit that the expert committee of Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS), constituted during the course of investigation, has opined that wrong blood was transfused to the deceased and negligence occurred during the process of treatment. Whether such negligence amounts to gross negligence or not is a matter of evidence, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. At this stage, the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made out. *******It is also contended that the absence of post-mortem examination or delay in lodging the complaint cannot, by itself, be a ground for quashment of the criminal proceedings, particularly when other material and expert opinion are available on record. Learned State counsel would submit that these aspects are matters of defence which can be effectively raised by the petitioner during trial. 10 *******Learned State counsel would further argue that the principles laid down in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab do not create an absolute bar on prosecution of medical professionals, but only prescribe guidelines to prevent frivolous litigation. In the present case, the investigation was conducted after obtaining expert opinion, and therefore, the requirement of law stands duly complied with. *******It is lastly submitted that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, and at this stage, quashment of charge-sheet would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution. Hence, learned State counsel prays that the petition be dismissed and the trial be permitted to proceed in accordance with law. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed, as the petitioner is seeking to short-circuit a full-fledged criminal trial by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. It is contended that the death of the wife of respondent No.2 was not natural, but occurred due to gross and inexcusable medical negligence, and the materials collected during investigation clearly disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner. *******It is submitted that the investigation has revealed that incompatible blood was transfused to the deceased, which is a fundamental and basic lapse in medical care. Learned counsel would contend that such an error is not a mere error of judgment, but reflects 11 a serious breach of duty and established medical protocol. The petitioner, being the Head of the Blood Bank, was responsible for overall supervision, implementation of standard operating procedures, and ensuring that blood issued from the blood bank was properly cross-matched and safely handled. *******Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner cannot escape criminal liability by merely claiming that he did not personally transfuse the blood. It is argued that the doctrine of vicarious responsibility and common intention under Section 34 of the IPC would squarely apply, as the issuance of incompatible blood from the blood bank was a collective failure involving the petitioner and other co- accused persons. *******It is also contended that the expert committee of CIMS has categorically found that wrong blood was transfused to the deceased, and such a finding itself is sufficient to require the matter to be tried on evidence. Whether the committee report is conclusive or whether negligence is gross in nature are matters which can only be adjudicated after recording of evidence and cross-examination of witnesses. *******Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would further submit that delay in lodging the complaint occurred due to the shock and trauma suffered by the family members and due to the initial belief that the death was a medical complication. The delay, therefore, stands duly explained and does not dilute the seriousness of the allegations. 12 *******It is also submitted that non-conduct of post-mortem examination cannot be used as a shield by the accused persons when the medical records, hospital treatment papers and expert opinion are available on record. Learned counsel would argue that the causal link between wrong blood transfusion and the death of the patient is a matter of medical evidence which must be tested during trial. *******Learned counsel would further submit that the relief granted to the co-accused, Dr. Shweta Sablani (Mishra), cannot automatically enure to the benefit of the present petitioner, as the role attributed to each accused is distinct and must be examined independently. The principle of parity is not mechanically applicable in criminal jurisprudence, particularly where allegations pertain to different stages of medical treatment. *******Lastly, it is contended that this Hon’ble Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of evidence or to determine the probability of conviction. Since the charge-sheet discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and raises triable issues, interference at this stage would result in miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, learned counsel for respondent No.2 prays that the present petition be dismissed, and the trial Court be permitted to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 13 14. The scope and ambit of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is well settled. Such power is to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation do not disclose the commission of any offence, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. 15. The gravamen of the allegation against the present petitioner is that wrong blood was transfused to the deceased, resulting in her death. However, a careful scrutiny of the charge-sheet and the material placed on record reveals that there is no specific allegation nor any medical opinion attributing gross negligence to the petitioner. The petitioner was working as the Head of the Blood Bank and admittedly did not administer the blood transfusion to the deceased. The transfusion was carried out in the hospital by the treating doctor and the staff nurse. The blood bags issued from the blood bank clearly mentioned the blood groups, and no material has been brought on record to show that the petitioner tampered with, mislabeled, or negligently issued incompatible blood. 16. The expert opinion obtained from the Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS), which forms the foundation of the prosecution case, is conspicuously inconclusive insofar as the present petitioner is concerned. The report does not record any categorical finding that the petitioner acted rashly or negligently, much less with gross negligence. On the contrary, the report indicates lapse on the part of the duty 14 doctor and the staff nurse who transfused the blood and failed to take corrective measures even after disclosure of incompatibility. In the absence of a clear and reasoned medical opinion indicting the petitioner, the very substratum of criminal prosecution against him is rendered unsustainable. 17. The law with regard to criminal prosecution of medical professionals is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1, has authoritatively held that for fastening criminal liability on a medical professional, the negligence has to be gross or of a very high degree, and mere lack of care, error of judgment or accident is not sufficient to constitute an offence under criminal law. It has further been laid down that before prosecuting a doctor, a credible opinion from a competent medical board supporting the charge of gross negligence is a sine qua non. 18. Reiterating the said principle, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Martin F. D’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, (2009) 3 SCC 1, has emphasized that courts must ensure that medical professionals are not unnecessarily harassed and that prosecution should not be launched without an independent and competent medical opinion. Similarly, in Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre, (2010) 3 SCC 480, the Apex Court cautioned that criminal liability cannot be fastened merely because a patient has suffered or died, unless the conduct of the doctor is shown to be reckless or grossly negligent. 19. In the present case, none of the essential ingredients required to 15 constitute criminal negligence are satisfied. There is no material to demonstrate that the petitioner possessed a guilty mind or that he acted in a manner which no prudent medical professional would have acted in similar circumstances. The absence of post-mortem examination, the delay in lodging the complaint, and lack of a clear causal nexus between the alleged act and the death of the deceased further weaken the prosecution case against the petitioner. 20. This Court also finds substance in the submission of the petitioner that one of the co-accused, namely Dr. Shweta Sablani (Mishra), against whom more direct allegations were levelled, has already been granted relief by this Court by quashing of the criminal proceedings. The role attributed to the present petitioner is even more remote, and therefore, on the principle of parity as well, the continuation of proceedings against him would be wholly unjustified. 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has held that where the allegations made in the FIR or charge-sheet do not disclose the commission of any offence or are manifestly attended with mala fide, the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent powers to quash the proceedings. Applying the said principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that permitting the prosecution to continue against the petitioner would result in sheer abuse of the process of law. 22. Accordingly, this Court holds that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is unsustainable in law and 16 deserves to be quashed to secure the ends of justice. 23. In view of the foregoing discussion and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this petition is allowed. The First Information Report bearing Crime No. 5/2017 registered at Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur, and the charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto, as well as all consequential proceedings of Criminal Case No. 373/2017 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, are hereby quashed insofar as the present petitioner, Dr. S. G. Ghatge, is concerned. 24. It is made clear that this order shall not affect the proceedings, if any, against the other accused persons, in accordance with law. 25. The petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika/ved