Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Doctor in Medical Negligence Case Due to Lack of Criminal Intent. Section 304 IPC not attracted as negligence was not gross or reckless, and death occurred during medical procedure without mens rea.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA In Favour of Accused
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The applicant, Dr. Sangeeta Salunke, a registered medical practitioner, filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No. 0966/2018 registered at Police Station Frazerpura, Amravati for offence under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR was lodged by the non-applicant no.2, Vivek Deshmukh, alleging that the death of his wife Vanshika was caused due to negligence of the applicant and Dr. Wankhede during an abortion procedure. The facts reveal that the couple approached the applicant for termination of pregnancy, and the procedure was performed on 22/06/2018. Subsequently, the patient's condition deteriorated, and she was referred to Getlife Hospital where it was found that her intestine was damaged. She was later taken to Nagpur Medical Hospital where she died on 27/06/2018. The applicant sought quashing of the FIR on the ground that the allegations did not constitute an offence under Section 304 IPC as there was no criminal intent or gross negligence. The court, after hearing the parties, held that the FIR did not disclose any criminal offence and was an abuse of process of law. The court quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Medical Negligence - Section 304 IPC - Quashing of FIR - The court considered whether the death of a patient during an abortion procedure due to alleged negligence of the doctor attracts Section 304 IPC. Held that criminal negligence requires a higher degree of negligence or recklessness, and mere civil liability is insufficient. The FIR was quashed as the allegations did not disclose any criminal intent or gross negligence. (Paras 2-5)

B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 CrPC - Inherent Powers - Quashing of FIR - The court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR as it was an abuse of process of law and no prima facie case for criminal offence was made out. (Para 2)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the FIR alleging offence under Section 304 IPC against a medical practitioner for negligence during abortion procedure should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when the negligence does not amount to criminal negligence.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the application and quashed the FIR No. 0966/2018 registered at Police Station Frazerpura, Amravati and all proceedings arising therefrom.

Law Points

  • Criminal negligence requires gross negligence or recklessness
  • not mere civil liability
  • Section 304 IPC not attracted without mens rea
  • Quashing under Section 482 CrPC for abuse of process
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (BOM) (06) 135

Criminal Application No. 757 of 2018

2019-06-04

SUNIL B. SHUKRE, PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA

Shri F.T.Mirza for applicant, Smt. S.Haider APP for nonapplicant no.1/State, Shri S.S.Randale for nonapplicant no.2

Dr. Mrs. Sangeeta W/o. Arun Salunke

The State of Maharashtra, through its Police Station Officer, Frazerpura, Amravati and Vivek S/o Manohar Deshmukh

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR alleging offence under Section 304 IPC for medical negligence during abortion procedure.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of FIR No. 0966/2018 registered at Police Station Frazerpura, Amravati for offence under Sections 304 r/w 34 IPC.

Filing Reason

The applicant, a doctor, was accused of causing death of patient due to negligence during abortion procedure.

Issues

Whether the FIR discloses an offence under Section 304 IPC against the applicant? Whether the FIR should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC as an abuse of process of law?

Submissions/Arguments

Applicant argued that the FIR does not disclose any criminal offence and is an abuse of process of law. State and non-applicant no.2 opposed the application.

Ratio Decidendi

Criminal negligence under Section 304 IPC requires a higher degree of negligence or recklessness, and mere civil liability is not sufficient to attract criminal offence. The FIR did not disclose any criminal intent or gross negligence, hence quashed.

Judgment Excerpts

This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of F.I.R. bearing no. 0966/2018, registered at Police Station, Frazerpura, District Amravati, against the applicant and one more accused for the offence punishable under Sections 304 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant is a registered Medical Practitioner and carrying her practice at Ram Nagar, Amravati under the name and style as 'Salunke Maternity and Hospital'. The nonapplicant no.2 – Vivek Deshmukh, the first informant, lodged a report alleging therein that the death of his wife Vanshika was caused due to the negligence of the applicant – Dr. Sangeeta Salunke and Dr. Wankhede of Getlife Hospital.

Procedural History

The FIR was registered on the complaint of Vivek Deshmukh. The applicant filed this application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the FIR. The court heard the parties and reserved judgment on 30/04/2019, pronouncing it on 04/06/2019.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 304, 34
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Doctor in Medical Negligence Case Due to Lack of Criminal Intent. Section 304 IPC not attracted as negligence was not gross or reckless, and death occurred during medical procedure without mens rea.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Suit, Holds Partial Abatement Only. Death of some appellants during pendency of appeal does not abate entire appeal; decree not a nullity under Order 22 CPC.