Dismissed¶23

Murari Shankar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2026CRLR/432/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Medical negligence - death after gall bladder surgery - application under S.175(3) BNSS to summon doctors under Ss.106/306, 120, 316 BNS rejected by ACJM, Court No. 6, Prayagraj - CMO panel enquiry found no negligence, treatment per protocol, death due to cardio-respiratory arrest - revision against rejection dismissed - no illegality or irregularity - Allahabad High Court, Abdul Shahid, J., February 4, 2026.

What did the court decide?

This Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 17.11.2025 rejecting the application under Section 175(3) B.N.S.S.; accordingly the criminal revision is dismissed. ¶22

Murari Shankar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 432 of 2026

¶3

Murari Shankar

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) :	Siddharth Shanker Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 87

¶7

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned order dated 17.11.2025, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Prayagraj, was passed without application of judicial mind and without considering the facts and circumstances mentioned in the application.

¶10

The application under Section 175(3) B.N.S.S. was filed for summoning the prospective accused under Sections 106, 120, and 316 B.N.S. It was stated that the wife of the complainant, aged about 45 years, was suffering from stomach pain and was initially consulted by Dr. K.K. Singh, Surgeon, Adarsh Hospital, Hanumanganj, Bajar. She was advised that surgery should be performed only after control of infection. Upon perusal of the ultrasound report, the doctor advised non-operation for a period of one month.

¶11

On 27.11.2024, due to recurrence of stomach pain, the wife of the complainant consulted Dr. Shobhnath Yadav at Gama Hospital, Prayagraj. It is alleged that Dr. Shobhnath Yadav ignored the advice of Dr. K.K. Singh and advised immediate surgery after noting the serious condition of the patient. The wife of the complainant was holding an Ayushman Card, and Dr. Shobhnath Yadav assured treatment under the Ayushman scheme. After approval, she was admitted on 08.12.2024 at about 11:00 A.M. at Gama Hospital. After preliminary reports, she was

¶12

CRLR No. 432 of 2026

¶13

¶14

operated upon on 08.12.2024 at about 2:00 P.M. under anesthesia. After she was brought out of the operation theatre, the surgeon informed that there were several adhesions and a malignant gall bladder, and whatever was possible had been removed and the operation was thereafter closed. On deterioration of her condition on 09.12.2024 at about 12:00 midnight, Dr. Shobhnath Yadav, allegedly to safeguard himself from negligence, got her admitted on 10.12.2024 at about 3:15 P.M. at Shakuntala Hospital, Civil Lines, Prayagraj.

¶15

At the time of admission to Shakuntala Hospital, the patient was unconscious, hypotensive, in gasping condition, and suffering from hypoglycemia. She was immediately shifted to the ICU, and high-dose antibiotics, vasopressor/inotropic support, and mechanical ventilation were provided. Within 3–4 hours of admission, after conducting investigations such as ultrasound and CT scan and despite production of the Ayushman Card, an amount of Rs. 80,000 to Rs. 90,000 was charged. Thereafter, the patient expired on 11.12.2024 at about 3:50 A.M. It was alleged that Dr. Shobhnath Yadav deliberately and negligently operated upon the patient and referred her to another hospital when her condition deteriorated, without any referral note, which resulted in her death. It was thus contended that the act of the accused persons falls within the ambit of Sections 306, 120, and 316 B.N.S.

¶16

The Police Station Sarai Inayat, District Prayagraj, submitted its report. Upon consideration, it was disclosed that an enquiry was conducted by a panel of three medical doctors under the orders of the Chief Medical Officer, Prayagraj. The enquiry revealed that the patient was suffering from septicemia and that required management was done in accordance with the prescribed protocol. It was further found that the patient died due to cardio-respiratory arrest and that no negligence on the part of the doctors or hospital management was established. The report of the Chief Medical Officer dated 25.02.2025 categorically stated that the patient was treated and managed properly in accordance with the protocol and that no medical negligence was found.

¶17

After considering all the aforesaid facts, reasons, and circumstances, the impugned order was passed and the application of the complainant

¶18

CRLR No. 432 of 2026

¶19

¶20

was rejected. It was also observed that the application appeared to have been drafted with professional assistance, as it contained technical medical terminology such as unconsciousness, hypotension, gasping condition, hypoglycemia, high-dose antibiotics, vasopressor/inotropic support, and mechanical ventilation, as well as references to offences under Sections 306, 120, and 316 B.N.S.

¶21

The material on record indicates that medical treatment was provided to the best of the ability of the doctors. The enquiry conducted by the panel of doctors under the supervision of the Chief Medical Officer found no negligence, and it was observed that proper management was provided as per the available protocol.

¶22