Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan quashed an FIR and all consequential proceedings alleging criminal medical negligence against a private hospital and its senior gynaecologist, subject to the petitioners depositing ₹25,000 as costs with the Delhi Police Martyrs’ Fund within four weeks and submitting proof to the concerned SHO. The complaint arose from allegations that during a caesarean section, a cotton abdominal mop was left inside the patient’s abdomen, leading to infection and a subsequent surgery for its removal. The petitioners sought quashing after an amicable settlement with the complainant, including payment of ₹14 lakh. The Court held that the lapse, at best, indicated civil liability and did not warrant criminal prosecution.

The petition was filed by a private multi-specialty hospital and its senior consultant obstetrician–gynaecologist seeking quashing of a criminal case arising out of allegations of medical negligence. The complainant was a patient who had undergone a lower segment caesarean section at the hospital while under the care of the second petitioner. It was alleged that during the surgery, a foreign object in the form of an abdominal cotton mop was inadvertently left inside the patient’s abdominal cavity, leading to infection and complications that necessitated a subsequent major surgery at another hospital.

Also Read: POSH Act | Woman May Approach ICC Of Her Own Workplace Against Sexual Harassment By Employee Of Another Organisation : Supreme Court

Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered for offences under Sections 336, 337 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During the pendency of proceedings, the dispute was referred to mediation, where the parties arrived at an amicable settlement. The complainant accepted compensation and expressed her unwillingness to pursue the criminal proceedings further.

The record showed that the matter had also been examined by the Disciplinary Committee of the Delhi Medical Council, which found lack of due diligence but stated out recklessness or gross negligence warranting criminal liability. The petitioners approached the High Court invoking its jurisdiction to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings in light of the settlement and the medical opinion on record.

The Court noted that the complainant had appeared before it and “states that all the disputes have since been settled, without any coercion, pressure or undue influence and she is also satisfied with the compensation amount of Rs. 14,00,000/-, received by her”. It recorded that she did not wish to pursue proceedings arising out of the FIR and had no objection to its quashing.

The Court observed that “Offences under Section 337 of the IPC are compoundable, whereas the offences under Section 336 of the IPC are non-compoundable”, but reiterated that the High Court has inherent powers to quash even non-compoundable offences where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process. Relying on settled precedent, the Court stated that “the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court”.

Referring to the findings of the Delhi Medical Council, the Court recorded that the Disciplinary Committee had observed that while an abdominal mop was left during surgery, “the acts or omissions…were not reckless or patently wanton to invite criminal liability”. It further noted that proper post-operative management and timely referral had been followed.

The Court reiterated the principles governing criminal prosecution of doctors, observing that “a complaint alleging criminal medical negligence by doctors should not ordinarily set the criminal law in motion, unless the opinion of the Medical Council is sought”. Applying the test of gross negligence, the Court recorded that “no such ‘gross lack of competence or recklessness’ has been detected on part of the Petitioners”.

While acknowledging the discomfort suffered by the patient, the Court observed that the incident was “unintentional and due oversight, bereft of the necessary mens rea and such degree of rashness to attract the rigours of a criminal trial”. It concluded that continuation of proceedings would cause undue harassment and amount to abuse of the process of court.

Also Read: Woman's Right To Shared Household Under Section 17 DV Act Not Licence To Indefinitely Occupy In-Laws’ Property; Delhi High Court

The Court held that “this is a fit case to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS”. It ordered that “FIR No. 455/2022 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed”, subject to payment of costs.

The Court directed that “ends of justice would be served if the Petitioners are put to cost” and accordingly imposed “total cost of ₹25,000/- by Petitioners, to be deposited with the Delhi Police Martyrs’ Fund, within a period of four weeks.The proof of deposit of cost be submitted to the concerned SHO”. The petition was allowed in these terms, and “pending application also stands disposed of”.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Ms. Petal Chandhok, Ms. Garima Raisinghani, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC (Crl.) with Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate for the State; Mr. Pardeep Dahiya, Advocate.

Case Title: Venkateshwar Hospital and Another v. State of NCT of Delhi and Another

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:11103

Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 3976/2025

Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan