The Madhya Pradesh High Court has declined to quash criminal proceedings against a government doctor facing allegations of refusing emergency medical treatment to a pregnant woman who later died while being shifted to another hospital. The Court held that the allegations disclose a prima facie case and that disputed facts must be examined during trial rather than in proceedings seeking quashing of the case.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Dr. Mandavi under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tikamgarh, and the Second Additional Sessions Judge, which had taken cognizance of a private complaint and upheld that decision respectively.
According to the complaint filed by Anish Khan, his wife Jaibun Nisha experienced labour pain and was admitted to the Government Hospital at Tikamgarh. The complaint alleged that another doctor advised an immediate operation and informed Dr. Mandavi, who was on emergency duty. However, it was claimed that she did not come to the hospital, later asked that the patient be shifted to a private nursing home, and allegedly demanded money before providing treatment. The woman was eventually referred to the Medical College at Jhansi but died on the way.
Petitioner's Arguments
Dr. Mandavi argued that she had been falsely implicated and that the allegations related to acts performed while discharging official duties as a government medical officer. She contended that prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC was mandatory before any court could take cognizance against her.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
The petitioner also pointed out that no post-mortem report had been produced to establish the cause of death and argued that the complaint was filed nearly five months after the alleged incident without a satisfactory explanation.
Court's Observations
Justice Himanshu Joshi observed that, at the stage of considering a petition for quashing, the High Court is not expected to determine whether the allegations are true.
The Court noted,
“The question whether the applicant actually refused treatment, whether any demand of money was made, and whether such conduct had any nexus with the death of the deceased are all matters requiring evidence and adjudication during trial.”
The Court further held that the absence of a post-mortem report or alleged deficiencies in evidence could not justify quashing criminal proceedings when the complaint, on its face, disclosed a prima facie case. It also said that issues relating to delay in filing the complaint and the requirement of sanction under Section 197 CrPC should be examined by the trial court after evidence is led.
Decision
Finding no patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the orders of the subordinate courts, the High Court dismissed the petition. It affirmed the Magistrate's order taking cognizance as well as the revisional court's decision, holding that the allegations require adjudication during trial and cannot be decided in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
Case Details:
Case Title: Dr. Mandavi v. Anish Khan
Case Number: Misc. Criminal Case No. 2320 of 2016
Judge: Justice Himanshu Joshi
Decision Date: 23 June 2026
