Allowed¶37

Ranchi Astha Child and Mother Care Private Ltd. v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Sept 2024Cr.M.P./2581/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashment petition (S.528 BNSS 2023) against FIR Argora P.S. Case No. 106 of 2024 charging IPC Ss.269, 270, 406, 420, 304A/34 for a maternal death after cesarean section; medical board (constituted per Jacob Mathew, (2005) 6 SCC 1) found no negligence at petitioner hospital or Paras hospital; no cheating (S.420) or misappropriation (S.406) alleged; Monica (Dr.), (2008) 8 SCC 781 ratio held inapplicable; prosecution deemed vengeance-driven; proceeding quashed qua petitioners; petition allowed; Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; decided 17.09.2024.

What did the court decide?

Entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Argora P.S. Case No. 106 of 2024 quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. ¶37

Ranchi Astha Child and Mother Care Private Ltd. Vs… — Company and Corporate | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Argora P.S. Case No. 106 of 2024 quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only.

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Argora P.S. Case No. 106 of 2024 should be quashed qua the petitioners. +2 more

¶13

Court's answer

With no material showing that any offence for which the FIR was registered is made out, the prosecution cannot be termed legitimate but is for the purpose of wreaking vengeance and is not sustainable in law; therefore the ratio of Monica (Dr.) is not applicable to the facts of this case.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

Even if the entire allegations against the petitioners are taken as true, the offences punishable under Sections 420 or 406 IPC are not made out, as there is absolutely no allegation of cheating or dishonest misappropriation of property or money entrusted to them.

¶30

Key takeaways

The medical board constituted in terms of the Jacob Mathew guidelines opined that treatment at petitioner no.1 hospital and Paras hospital was of good quality with no negligence; hence, in the absence of negligence, the offences punishable under Sections 304A, 269 or 270 IPC are not made out against the petitioners.ratio¶31
Continuation of the criminal proceeding in connection with Argora P.S. Case No. 106 of 2024 against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law, warranting quashal of the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR qua the petitioners only.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Jharkhand HC (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.), Cr.M.P. No. 2581 of 2024, decided 17.09.2024: Petition under S.528 BNSS 2023 by Ranchi Aastha Child and Mother Care Private Ltd. and its director-gynaecologist Dr. Sunita Mishra to quash the entire criminal proceeding including FIR, Argora P.S. Case No. 106 of 2024 (Ss.269, 270, 406, 420, 304A/34 IPC), arising from the post-cesarean death of the informant's wife. A medical board constituted in terms of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1 opined treatment at the petitioners' hospital and Paras hospital was of good quality with no negligence. Held: no allegation of cheating or dishonest misappropriation, so Ss.420/406 IPC not attracted even if all allegations are taken as true; absent negligence, Ss.304A/269/270 IPC not attracted; the prosecution is vengeance-driven, not legitimate, and the ratio of Monica (Dr.), (2008) 8 SCC 781 is inapplicable; continuation would amount to abuse of process. Entire proceeding including FIR quashed qua petitioners only; petition allowed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2581 of 2024

¶2

Ranchi Aastha Child and Mother Care Private Ltd., a company incorporated under Companies Act 1956 having its registered office at H-214, Harmu Housing Colony, P.O.-Doranda, P.S.-Argora, Dist.-Ranchi (Jharkhand)-834002, through one of its director Dr. Sunita Mishra @ Sunita Kumari, w/o Dr. Rajeev Mishra, aged about 61 years, R/o H-214, Harmu Housing Colony, P.O.-Doranda, P.S.Argora, Dist.-Ranchi (Jharkhand)-834002

¶3

Dr. Sunita Mishra @ Sunita Kumari, w/o Dr. Rajeev Mishra, aged about 61 years, R/o H-214, Harmu Housing Colony, P.O.-Doranda, P.S.-Argora, Dist.-Ranchi (Jharkhand)-834002

¶4

.... Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

…. Opp. Party

¶8

P R E S E N T

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashish Jha, Advocate : Mr. Kumar Nischay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A. III : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, AC to GA III For the Informant : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate …..

¶11

By the Court:-

¶12

Heard the parties.

¶13

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Argora P.S. Case

¶14

Cr.M.P. No.2581 of 2024

¶15

¶16

No. 106 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections

¶17

269, 270, 406, 420, 304A/34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner no.2 is a gynecologist and one of the directors of the petitioner no.1. The wife of the informant was admitted in the petitioner no.1 hospital. She underwent cesarean section. Postoperatively, she had a drop in urine output for which she was referred to Paras hospital, where the wife of the informant underwent dialysis. During the treatment at Paras hospital, the wife of the informant developed other organ dysfunctions including sepsis for which treatment was started as per surviving sepsis guidelines. While undergoing the treatment at Paras hospital, the patient’s family took a questioned decision, by choosing to leave the Paras hospital against medical advice and she was admitted in ICU of RIMS, Ranchi but again the family members of the deceased decided to transfer, the said wife of the informant to another center after getting her discharged against medical advice, from RIMS and the wife of the informant died on the way of being taken to Dhanbad.

¶19

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have not committed any act or omission which constitutes any offence. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no allegation of any cheating by the petitioners nor there is any allegation of dishonest misappropriation of any property against the petitioners hence, neither the offence punishable under Section 420 nor the offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners, even if the entire allegation made against them are considered to be

¶20

Cr.M.P. No.2581 of 2024

¶21

¶22

in their entirety. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the cause of death may be because of shifting the deceased while she was undergoing the treatment from two different hospitals by getting her discharged against medical advice from Paras hospital which is having super specialty facility and the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi which is one of the premier hospitals, in the State of Jharkhand having a medical college with facility for super speciality study in several branches of medical science. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the medical board constituted in view of the principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jacob Mathew vs. The State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2005) 6 SCC 1 and which was headed by Head of Department and Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, RIMS, with the professors and Head of Departments of Medicine, Department of Critical Care Medicine and Department of Anesthesia as members, has categorically opined that the treatment at petitioner no.1 hospital and Paras hospital was of good quality and there was no negligence in treatment of the said wife of informant, in either of these centers. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the absence of any negligence of the petitioners and in the absence of any negligence, none of the offences punishable under Section 304A, or under Sections 269 or under section 270 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner no.1 which is a renowned hospital and the petitioner no.2 who is the specialized gynecologist at Ranchi having untarnished image of practice for past

¶23

Cr.M.P. No.2581 of 2024

¶24

¶25

25 years will amount to abuse of process of law. It is next submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged for the purpose of the wreaking vengeance. Hence, it submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

¶26

Learned G.A. III fairly submits that during the investigation in terms of guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jacob Mathew vs. The State of Punjab & Anr. (supra), the medical board was constituted and the said medical Board has categorically opined that the petitioner no.1 or Paras hospital provided good quality treatment to the deceased and there was no negligence in either of these centers in treatment of the wife of the informant.

¶27

Learned counsel for the informant on the other hand opposes the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that the allegation made in the FIR is sufficient to constitute all the offences for which the FIR has been registered. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the informant by relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Chandan Thakur @ Chandan Kumar Thakur vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. in Cr.M.P. No. 226 of 2018 dated 14.07.2024; that in that case this Court relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Monica (Dr.) & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that a legitimate prosecution cannot be stifled by the Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

¶28

Cr.M.P. No.2581 of 2024

¶29

¶30

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of cheating or dishonest misappropriation of the property or money entrusted to them. In the absence of the same, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Sections 420 or 406 of Indian Penal Code is not made out.

¶31

In view of the undisputed fact that the medical board which was constituted in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jacob Mathew vs. The State of Punjab & Anr. (supra) has categorically opined that the treatment provided at petitioner no.1 and Paras hospital was good quality and there was no negligence in either of the centers; so, in the absence of any negligence on the part of the petitioners, the offences punishable under Section 304A, 269 or 270 of Indian Penal Code is not made out, against the petitioners.

¶32

In the absence of any material in the record to show that any offence for which the FIR was registered is made out against the petitioners certainly the prosecution cannot be termed as legitimate prosecution rather it is a prosecution for the purpose of wreaking vengeance which is not sustainable in law. Therefore, the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Monica (Dr.) & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case.

¶33

Cr.M.P. No.2581 of 2024

¶34

¶35

In view of the discussions made above, as, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in its entirety still none of the offences for which the FIR has been registered is made out against the petitioners, hence, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceeding in connection with Argora P.S. Case No. 106 of 2024, against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Argora P.S. Case No. 106 of 2024 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only.

¶36

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Argora P.S. Case No. 106 of 2024 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only.

¶37

In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.

¶38

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶39

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 17^th September, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

¶40

Cr.M.P. No.2581 of 2024

¶41

Ranchi Astha Child and Mother Care Private Ltd. v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranchi Astha Child and Mother Care Private Ltd. v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Modi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramsewak Choudhary Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Ramdhani Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arjun Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Anwar Ali Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Badal Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand