Patna HC Quashes Criminal Negligence Case Against PMCH Orthopaedic Surgeon, Cites Absence of Expert Medical Opinion

The Patna High Court set aside a Section 304-A IPC cognizance order against a senior orthopaedic lecturer, holding that no credible medical opinion supported the negligence charge.

The High Court of Judicature at Patna, on 21 July 2026, quashed a criminal complaint case and all consequential proceedings against Dr. Govind Mohan Jee, an MS (Orthopaedics) lecturer at Patna Medical College and Hospital. Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha, sitting singly, exercised the court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order dated 12 December 2017 passed by the Sub-Judge-II-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. The magistrate had, through that order, refused to discharge the petitioner and put him to trial for offences under Sections 420, 304-A and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court found that the prosecution had not produced any credible opinion from a competent medical professional to support a charge of criminal negligence — a prerequisite firmly established by the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Another, (2005) 6 SCC 1.

The Complaint and the Proceedings Below

The complaint originated from Satish Yadav, a resident of Village Chak Mandhol, PS Tajpur, District Samastipur. He filed Complaint Case No. 2557 of 2012 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 06 September 2012.

According to the complaint, on 05 August 2012, Satish Yadav's father Bindeshwar Yadav fractured his hand after a fall near a hand pump. On Dr. Govind Mohan Jee's advice, the family admitted the elder Yadav to Jagdamba Nursing Home, Boring Canal Road, Patna for an operation. The complainant alleged that the petitioner collected Rs. 18,000 forcibly when Rs. 10,000 had been agreed upon, leading to an altercation. He further alleged that his father was operated upon forcibly and was administered excessive anaesthesia and a “poisoned injection,” causing the patient to become unconscious during surgery.

On 08 August 2012, the complainant stated, the father was taken from Jagdamba Nursing Home to PMCH, Patna, where his condition deteriorated. He eventually died, and a post-mortem examination was conducted at PMCH.

After inquiry and examination of the complainant and witnesses on oath, the jurisdictional magistrate took cognizance under Sections 420, 304-A and 504 IPC. Dr. Govind Mohan Jee then filed a petition under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. on 03 March 2017, seeking discharge. The Sub-Judge-II-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed that petition on 12 December 2017 and directed that the petitioner face trial. The present quashing petition before the High Court was filed in 2019, challenging that order.

The Petitioner's Case Before the High Court

Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, counsel for Dr. Govind Mohan Jee, pressed two distinct lines of argument: one on the factual narrative and one on the governing legal standard for prosecuting medical professionals.

On facts, counsel submitted that Bindeshwar Yadav was admitted to Jagdamba Nursing Home on 07 August 2012 and was discharged on 08 August 2012 at the complainant's own request. He argued that the operation was performed only after essential tests at the initial stage and that the operation was stopped mid-way at Jagdamba Nursing Home in view of the patient's health condition. After discharge, the patient was taken to Arvind Hospital, Patna, and was subsequently admitted to PMCH's Emergency Ward at 6:41 PM on 08 August 2012, dying two days later on 10 August 2012. Counsel contended that any negligence, if it existed, may have occurred at Arvind Hospital, since the patient had been discharged from Jagdamba Nursing Home in good condition.

On law, counsel relied on the directions in Jacob Mathew (supra), specifically paragraph 52, which requires that a private complaint against a medical professional not be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence before the court in the form of a credible opinion given by another competent doctor supporting the charge of rashness or negligence. Counsel pointed out that no such opinion was placed before the magistrate.

Counsel also argued that the magistrate's own order disclosed an awareness of this legal position but set it aside on the reasoning that it is difficult for a private person to persuade any doctor to depose against another doctor. The petitioner's counsel submitted this reasoning was directly contrary to settled Supreme Court law.

Further, counsel relied on paragraph 48 of Jacob Mathew, which holds that 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 no medical professional in ordinary senses and prudence would have done or failed to do, and that the hazard taken was of such a nature that the resulting injury was most likely imminent. The court was also taken to Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre, (2010) 3 SCC 480, which emphasised that medical professionals are entitled to protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence.

On the standard for exercising Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction, counsel relied on the well-known seven categories from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly category seven, which covers proceedings manifestly attended with malice and instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance on the accused. Counsel submitted that the petitioner, a highly qualified surgeon who completed his MBBS from RMCH Ranchi, his MS (Orthopaedics) from PMCH in 1997, and was appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Orthopaedics at PMCH on 24 September 2001 through a Bihar Public Service Commission examination, had been facing criminal prosecution for 14 years despite having no fault.

Counsel also drew on the framing-of-charge standard from Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4, as reproduced in Dipakbhai Jageishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547, and on Rajiv Thapar and Others v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, which confirmed that High Courts exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 226 may consider material produced on behalf of the accused to determine whether charges can be maintained.

The Complainant's Reply

Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, counsel for the complainant and Opposite Party No. 2, submitted that the trial court had considered the material on record before concluding that the allegations were not groundless and that the petitioner should be put to trial for the offence under Section 304-A IPC.

He argued that the issues raised by the petitioner's counsel — including the sequence of events at Jagdamba Nursing Home, Arvind Hospital and PMCH — could only be properly evaluated during the trial and not at the stage of a quashing petition. In support, he relied on Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha examined the legal position from Jacob Mathew closely. The court extracted paragraph 38, which reproduces the principle that to impose criminal liability under Section 304-A IPC, death must be the direct result of a rash and negligent act of the accused, and that act must be the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence. The court noted the latin formulation from Jacob Mathew: the act must be the causa causans; it is not sufficient that it may have been the causa sine qua non.

The court also reproduced paragraph 48(6) and 48(7) of Jacob Mathew, which collectively hold that the word “gross” is absent from Section 304-A IPC but that criminal negligence must nonetheless be of so high a degree as to be gross, and that the accused must have done or failed to do something that no medical professional in ordinary senses and prudence would have done or failed to do.

The court observed that the jurisprudence governing medical negligence consistently recognises the distinction between civil liability and criminal culpability, lest the fear of criminal prosecution erode independent medical decision-making and adversely affect public healthcare. The court also invoked Article 21 of the Constitution of India, stating that the constitutional guarantee encompasses not only the patient's right to life but also the medical professional's right to practise with dignity, fairness and protection against arbitrary criminal prosecution.

On the specific procedural defect, the court held that in the absence of prima facie material disclosing gross negligence supported by competent medical opinion, permitting the prosecution to continue would result in manifest injustice and defeat the object of the criminal justice system. The magistrate had acknowledged the Jacob Mathew guidelines but had nonetheless declined to apply them on the ground that procuring a doctor's opinion against another doctor is practically difficult. Justice Jha found this reasoning to be directly contrary to settled Supreme Court law, and that the petitioner's case fell within the principles warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.

Order

Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha allowed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4096 of 2019. The order dated 12 December 2017 passed by the Sub-Judge-II-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No. 2557 of 2012, along with all consequential proceedings against Dr. Govind Mohan Jee, was set aside and quashed. The court directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the trial court forthwith. The judgment was uploaded on 23 July 2026.