Patna High Court Quashes 22-Year-Old Criminal Case Against Gynaecologist | Terms It Abuse Of Process Citing Unimpeachable Medical Report On Kidney Removal Allegation
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Judicature at Patna Single Bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in connection with an alleged unauthorized kidney removal. The Court held that the complaint and supporting materials did not disclose any prima facie offence against the petitioner under Sections 307, 326, 420, 467, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Relying on settled judicial principles, the Court found that the allegations, even if taken at face value, were insufficient to proceed against the petitioner and directed that the order dated 23 February 2024, along with all consequential proceedings, be set aside.
The proceedings arose out of Complaint Case No. 1750(c) of 2003, initiated by one Satish Kumar, a mailman employed in the Railway Mail Services at Patna Railway Station. According to the complaint, the informant suffered from abdominal pain in June 2000 and sought treatment at the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) dispensary in Kankarbagh, Patna. An ultrasonography conducted on 29 August 2000 revealed mild hepatomegaly, with both kidneys reported as intact.
The informant subsequently consulted Dr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, who diagnosed him with Chyluria and advised surgery. The operation was performed on 13 September 2000 at a private hospital. The complainant alleged that the surgical team included the petitioner, Dr. Mamta Sinha, wife of the operating surgeon, two assistants, and an anaesthetist. Post-surgery, the complainant experienced continued complications, leading to further examinations.
Subsequent medical assessments, including a USG conducted in 2003 at CGHS Patna and at Mahavir Cancer Sansthan, reportedly failed to visualize the right kidney. The complainant alleged that the kidney had been removed during surgery without his knowledge or consent. Based on these claims, criminal charges were brought under Sections 326, 307, 420, 467, and 471 IPC. The case was committed to the Sessions Court after cognizance was taken by the Magistrate.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner, a qualified gynaecologist registered with the Bihar Medical Council, had no role in the surgery. The defence submitted that her presence during the operation was incidental and not professionally required. It was further stated that the petitioner had been included in the complaint solely due to her relationship with the principal accused, Dr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha.
The petitioner’s counsel cited the opinion of Dr. Mahendra Singh of IGIMS, Patna, and findings from PGIMER, Chandigarh, where a Medical Board concluded that the complainant’s right kidney had not been surgically removed but was severely atrophic. The Board's cystoscopy and CT pyelography confirmed the presence of a pelvicalyceal system and a shrunken kidney, ruling out surgical excision.
Additionally, the complainant had filed a consumer complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, which was dismissed in 2018. The appeal against this order before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, was also rejected in 2023, with the Commission upholding the findings of the State Commission.
In light of these facts, the petitioner sought quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that no offence was made out against her and that the prosecution was malicious.
Opposing the plea, counsel for the complainant contended that the petitioner’s presence in the operation theatre was unexplained and suggested the possibility of conspiracy. It was submitted that such matters warranted trial and could not be conclusively determined at the pre-trial stage.
The Court recorded: “The version of allegations as set out through complaint petition, nowhere suggests prima facie any cognizable offences as alleged for offences punishable U/s 307, 326, 420, 467 and 471 of the IPC qua petitioner.”
It stated: “Interestingly, no cognizance was taken for criminal conspiracy punishable u/s 120-B of the IPC.” The Court noted: “Hence, this case also falls under the golden guideline nos. (1), (3) and (7) as settled through Bhajan Lal case (supra).”
Discussing the evidence, the Court observed: “It also appears that none of the radiological tests prior to P.G.I., Chandigarah suggests that it was a case of kidney removal rather it only suggest that the right kidney of O.P. No.2 is not visualized.”
Referring to the PGIMER Medical Board findings, the Court noted: “The committee concluded that the right kidney of Mr. Satish Kumar was not removed. However, it is shrunken and severely atrophic.”
On the issue of the petitioner’s role, the Court recorded: “The petitioner admittedly did nothing during the operation and she was only alleged to be remain present there as a team member, which was suspected as un-occasioned by the complainant.”
Applying the principles laid down in Devendra Nath Padhi and Jacob Mathew, the Court stated: “The report of PGI, Chandigarh discussed in para-17 of the judgment is a document of such unimpeachable character, to which, this Court has no hesitation to accept at this stage.”
The Court referred: “To prosecute a medical professional for negligence under criminal law it must be shown that the accused did something or failed to do something which in the given facts and circumstances no medical professional in his ordinary senses and prudence would have done or failed to do.”
Citing Rajiv Thapar, the Court noted: “Under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court was free to consider even material that may be produced on behalf of the accused, to arrive at a decision whether the charge as framed could be maintained.”
Ultimately, the Court concluded: “The complaint and supporting documents do not disclose any offence against the petitioner.”
The Court found that the order dated 23 February 2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-X, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 440 of 2023 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1750(c) of 2003, along with all consequential proceedings against the petitioner, was liable to be set aside in order to secure the ends of justice.
Accordingly, the said order and its consequential proceedings were quashed. The petition was allowed, and the Court directed that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the trial court without delay.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate; Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate; Mr. Ritwik Thakur, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP
For the Opposite Party: Mr. Sanjay Singh, Senior Advocate; Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate
Case Title: Dr. Mamta Sinha v. The State of Bihar & Another
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 27653 of 2024
Bench: Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha
[Read/Download order]
