Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Doctors in Medical Negligence Case; Reiterates Strict Threshold for Prosecution Under Section 304-A IPC
Case Name: Vijay Kumar Dhawan and Others v. Gurpreet Singh
Date of Judgment: 08 January 2026
Citation: CRM-M-15772-2018
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quashed the criminal complaint as well as the summoning order issued against the petitioners for the offence under Section 304-A read with Section 34 IPC. The Court held that in the absence of prima facie medical evidence indicating gross rashness or negligence, criminal prosecution of medical professionals would amount to abuse of the process of law. It was further held that the Magistrate failed to adhere to the binding guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court governing prosecution of doctors for medical negligence.
Summary: The complainant alleged that his wife, who was admitted to Dhawan Nursing Home for delivery, suffered complications following a surgical procedure and subsequently died during further treatment at another hospital. Holding the petitioners responsible for her death, he filed a private complaint alleging medical negligence. Upon recording preliminary evidence, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patti, summoned the petitioners to face trial under Section 304-A IPC.
The petitioners challenged the summoning order, contending that there was no medical opinion on record attributing negligence to them. Reliance was placed on the testimony of CW-3, a senior surgeon from the subsequent treating hospital, who categorically deposed that the patient had suffered from postpartum haemorrhage and disseminated intravascular coagulation and that no negligence was attributable to the petitioners. It was further pointed out that pursuant to directions issued by the High Court in an earlier writ petition, an inquiry conducted by a team of government doctors had concluded that the events leading to the patient’s death were natural and that no lapse or negligence was found on the part of the petitioners. The complainant’s consumer complaint on similar allegations had also been dismissed in default.
The State did not contest the medical record but relied upon the summoning order passed by the Magistrate. The High Court, after examining the material, found that the Magistrate had merely noted that the death occurred due to pregnancy-related complications, without recording any finding that such complications were the result of rash or negligent acts amounting to criminal negligence. The Court noted that neither was the complaint referred to a medical board nor was any independent expert opinion obtained, contrary to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Martin F. D’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq.
The Court reiterated that criminal liability of a medical professional arises only where negligence is gross and of a very high degree, and that mere error of judgment, adverse outcome, or complication during treatment cannot attract criminal prosecution. It was emphasised that the testimony of the complainant and related witnesses could not override consistent medical evidence exonerating the petitioners.
Decision: The petition was allowed. The criminal complaint pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patti, along with the summoning order and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, were quashed qua the petitioners.