Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes Summoning of Doctor in Medical Negligence Case, Faults Trial Court for Ignoring Its Own PGI Report Direction

The High Court set aside a Gurugram magistrate’s summoning order under Section 304-A IPC, holding the trial court violated its own direction to obtain a PGI Chandigarh expert report before proceeding against the accused doctor.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh has quashed the summoning order issued by a Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, against Dr. Rohit Lalit in a criminal complaint alleging medical negligence in the death of a 22-year-old patient. Justice Surya Partap Singh, sitting singly, found that the trial court had itself directed that an expert opinion be obtained from a Board of doctors at PGI Chandigarh, yet proceeded to summon the accused without waiting for that report. The court held this procedure to be “perverse and contrary to the settled norms of judicial discipline.” The matter arose from the death of Simran Chhabra on 21 January 2023 at Jagdamba Hospital, Gurugram, and the complaint was filed by her brother Sourabh Chhabra. The petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the provision that corresponds to the erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Complaint and the Allegations

Sourabh Chhabra filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, bearing complaint number COMI 492-2023, alleging that his sister Simran Chhabra died due to gross medical negligence by Dr. Rohit Lalit. According to the complaint, Simran visited Jagdamba Hospital on 21 January 2023 suffering from fever, cough and body pain. A prescription slip issued by the petitioner on that date recorded the same ailments. The complaint alleged that during treatment, the deceased developed complications, possibly from an allergic reaction to the drug Dynapar 75, which was injected on the instruction of the petitioner.

When the complication could not be managed at Jagdamba Hospital, the deceased was shifted to Aryan Hospital, Railway Road, Gurugram, where she was declared dead at 1:30 PM. A post-mortem examination was conducted at Civil Hospital, Gurugram on 22 January 2023 by Dr. Deepak Mathur and Dr. Sudhir Kumar. The complaint alleged offences under Sections 193, 201, 304, 304-A, 406, 420, 467, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

The respondent also alleged that the injection was administered by an untrained person without proper supervision, that the hospital lacked the equipment to handle the resulting complication, and that when the deceased needed to be shifted, no ambulance was arranged — she was transported in a private car without an adequate support system.

The District Medical Negligence Board and Its Report

After the respondent filed a complaint with the police on 21 January 2023 itself, the Civil Surgeon, Gurugram referred the matter to the District Medical Negligence Board, Gurugram. The Board, comprising six doctors including specialists, conducted an enquiry. An interim report was prepared. The respondent contended that the interim report gave a clean chit to the petitioner only because viscera analysis had not been completed, and that the Board simply accepted the petitioner’s version without scrutiny.

The Board subsequently submitted its final report dated 5 February 2024. Its conclusion was unambiguous: “The District Medical Board for Negligence Gurugram is of the considered professional opinion that Dr. Rohit Lalit cannot be held negligent keeping the above facts, circumstances and law of the land into consideration.”

The respondent challenged this finding by filing a separate criminal complaint against the Civil Surgeon, Gurugram and the six members of the Board. That complaint was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, vide order dated 3 June 2025. The High Court observed that the dismissal of that complaint meant there was no judicial question mark over the validity of the Board’s findings as of the date of the present order.

The Trial Court’s Contradictory Conduct

The respondent’s application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking a direction to the police to register an FIR, was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 28 September 2023. The trial court then proceeded to record preliminary evidence. On 10 April 2024, the trial court noted that a report had been sought from PGI Chandigarh and issued a direction accordingly.

The critical direction had in fact been issued earlier, on 28 September 2023 itself. On that date, the trial court directed that copies of the relevant documents be forwarded to the Director, PGI Chandigarh, with a request to constitute a Board of doctors to submit a report on culpable negligence of the treating doctor, if any, in a sealed cover by 3 November 2023.

That report was never received. By 9 May 2024, the trial court noted the report had still not arrived and directed that additional documents be sent to PGI Chandigarh, adjourning the matter to 11 June 2024 to await the report. However, on 31 May 2024, the file was taken up and the case was adjourned to 7 August 2024. On 7 August 2024, without waiting for the PGI report, the trial court heard arguments and passed the summoning order dated 4 September 2024, directing Dr. Rohit Lalit to appear as an accused to face trial under Section 304-A IPC.

The petitioner argued before the High Court that the trial court had failed on three counts: it did not follow its own direction to await the PGI report; it failed to appreciate the expert report of the District Medical Negligence Board that was already on record; and it ignored the settled legal position that summoning in a medical negligence complaint should not be ordered without an expert report.

The Respondent’s Defence of the Summoning Order

Counsel for the respondent argued that the prescription slip itself demonstrated negligence — a patient presenting with fever, cough and body pain was administered a Voveran injection, which counsel contended was not in accordance with prescribed norms of medical science. The respondent further alleged that the injection was given by an untrained person without actual supervision by the petitioner, and that when the complication arose it was not properly handled.

The respondent also pointed to an alleged mismatch between the timings of treatment recorded by the petitioner before the District Medical Negligence Board and the actual timings of the deceased’s arrival at Aryan Hospital, arguing that this discrepancy showed false documentation and that the Board had ignored it. On this basis, counsel for the respondent contended that the Board’s report carried no weight and that the trial court’s summoning order was a detailed and well-reasoned one that should not be disturbed on technicalities.

How the High Court Reasoned

Justice Surya Partap Singh did not enter into a final determination of whether medical negligence was committed. The court’s reasoning was anchored in the procedural conduct of the trial court itself.

The court observed that in a medical negligence case, the best assistance available to the judicial system for determining whether negligence occurred is expert opinion from those qualified in the field. In this case, such expert opinion had already been rendered by the six-doctor Board constituted by the Chief Medical Officer, Gurugram, and that Board had given a conclusive opinion in favour of the petitioner. The complaint filed by the respondent against the Board members had been dismissed, leaving the Board’s findings unchallenged in law.

The court then turned to the trial court’s own order of 28 September 2023. That order showed that the trial court itself was not satisfied with the existing material and considered it necessary to seek a second opinion from PGI Chandigarh. Having issued that direction, the trial court was bound to await the report before proceeding. Instead, it passed the summoning order on 4 September 2024 without the PGI report ever having been received.

Justice Surya Partap Singh held that this procedure was “in violation of its own direction, and therefore, perverse and contrary to the settled norms of judicial discipline.” The court added that if the trial court faced difficulty in procuring the PGI report, the proper course was to recall its earlier order with a justification and then proceed. That course was not adopted.

The court relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Another, 2005(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 836; Anjana Agnihotri & Another v. State of Haryana & Another, 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 83; and Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and Another, 2004(3) RCR (Criminal) 925, as well as the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision in Vijay Kumar Dhawan and Others v. Gurpreet Singh, 2026(2) RCR (Criminal) 289.

Outcome

The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the summoning order dated 4 September 2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram. The trial court was directed to procure the report from PGI Chandigarh as mandated by its own order dated 28 September 2023, appreciate that report along with the other material on record, and pass a fresh order.

The court clarified that all observations recorded in the present order were solely for the purpose of deciding the petition and would have no bearing on the fresh order to be passed by the trial court. The complaint bearing number COMI 492-2023 remains pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram.