HC grants relief to doctor, quashes criminal proceedings over disputed medical opinion
Patna: Granting relief to a doctor accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust for a disputed medical opinion, the Patna High Court recently reiterated the Supreme Court's observation that every act of breach of trust may not result in a penal offence of criminal breach of trust unless there is evidence of a manipulative act of fraudulent misappropriation.
Accordingly, the bench quashed the criminal proceedings against the doctor booked under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), noting that there was no evidence that the doctor had practised deception with a dishonest intention at the inception of the treatment.
"The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that where the allegations made in the complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and continuation thereof would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash such proceedings," observed the HC bench of Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra.
"In the facts of the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the allegations levelled against the petitioner, even if accepted in their entirety, fail to disclose the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The dispute essentially arises from an alleged medical opinion rendered by the petitioner in the course of her professional duties, without any prima facie material to indicated dishonest intention or criminal breach of trust. Thus, the present case squarely falls within the categories illustratively enumerated in... warranting interference by this Court to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of law," the bench held.
Case Background:
According to the case details, the complainant, an advocate by profession, visited the treating doctor's clinic for certain pregnancy-related complications. After considering the ultrasound report brought by the patient, the doctor advised her to undergo a medical termination of pregnancy for a fee.
It was submitted that although the patient deposited the prescribed fee, on the advice of her family members, she did not undergo the procedure. Subsequently, the petitioner-doctor prescribed certain medicines, which the she consumed, and it allegedly resulted in the deterioration of her health.
The patient claimed that when she subsequently consulted another doctor, she was informed that the foetus was healthy, and she ultimately delivered a healthy child. Therefore, alleging that the petitioner-doctor had deliberately furnished incorrect medical advice and retained the amount paid by her, the complainant filed the complaint.
After perusing the complaint, the solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statements of the inquiry witnesses recorded during the inquiry, the learned Magistrate found a prima facie case to be made out and took cognisance of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC against the petitioner.
Aggrieved by the said order, the doctor approached the Revisional Court, which dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order of cognisance passed by the learned Magistrate. Then, the doctor approached the High Court seeking quashing of the revisional order dated 16.02.2016 and all consequential criminal proceedings arising out of it. The Coordinate Bench of the High Court stayed the further proceedings pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Samastipur.
The counsel for the doctor argued before the HC bench that the orders passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Revisional Court are wholly unsustainable in the eyes of law, as the allegations made in the complaint petition, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC.
It was further submitted that there was no entrustment of any property to attract the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC. The counsel further submitted that there was neither any fraudulent or dishonest inducement nor any false representation made by the petitioner from the very inception of the transaction, and, therefore, the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 IPC are conspicuously absent.
Further, the counsel contended that the petitioner, being a qualified medical practitioner, merely rendered her professional opinion based on the ultrasound report produced by the complainant and prescribed medicines in the course of the treatment.
Observations by High Court:
The HC bench noted that the main allegation against the petitioner-doctor was that she rendered an incorrect medical opinion regarding the condition of the patient's pregnancy and advised medical termination thereof.
At the outset, the bench observed, "Significantly, the complaint itself discloses that the petitioner had not formed such opinion on her own but had first advised the opposite party no.2 to undergo an ultrasound examination and thereafter expressed her opinion on the basis of the ultrasound report produced before her. The allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, primarily relate to the correctness of the medical opinion rendered by the petitioner and do not, by themselves, disclose any material suggesting a deliberate or dishonest design from the inception."
The HC referred to a judgment, where the Supreme Court elaborately explained the sine qua non requirement for the offence of cheating and noted that "Every act of breach of trust may not result in a penal offence of criminal breach of trust unless there is evidence of manipulating act of fraudulent misappropriation."
Further, the bench referred to other Apex Court's orders, where the top court bench held that it is settled law that, to establish the offence of cheating, the complainant/respondent No.2 was required to show that the appellant had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making a promise or representation not to fulfil the agreement for sale of the said property. Such a culpable intention right at the beginning when the promise was made cannot be presumed but has to be made out with cogent facts.
"It further transpires from the materials available on record that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged are conspicuously absent. There is no material to indicate any entrustment of property so as to attract the offence under Section 406 of the IPC. Likewise, the complaint does not disclose that the petitioner made any false representation or practised deception with a dishonest intention at the very inception of the transaction so as to constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC. The allegation regarding payment of Rs.2,500/- also remains unsupported by any contemporaneous material...Furthermore, no independent medical opinion or other material has been brought on record to prima facie indicate that the medical advice rendered by the petitioner was knowingly false or actuated by any dishonest motive," observed the HC bench.
The court further relied on the Apex Court order, where the top court bench laid down the principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. "The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that where the allegations made in the complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and continuation thereof would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash such proceedings," noted the HC bench, further observing that the allegations levelled against the petitioner fail to disclose the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC.
"In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 16.02.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Samastipur in Criminal Revision No.1312 of 2014, and the order dated 09.06.2014 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Samastipur in Complaint Case No.170 of 2014, taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC against the present petitioner cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same are hereby set aside, consequently, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.170 of 2014, against the present petitioner, stands quashed," ordered the bench.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/08/07/dr-vs-state-of-bihar-363648.pdf
