Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
nd
% Reserved on: 22 December, 2025
th
Pronounced on: 26 February, 2026
+ W.P.(CRL) 1092/2019, CRL.M.A. 11985/2019, CRL.M.A.
36916/2019, CRL.M.A. 8514/2022, CRL.M.A. 16235/2022,
CRL.M.A. 4984/2023, CRL.M.A. 8835/2023, CRL.M.A.
9539/2023, CRL.M.A. 35776/2024, CRL.M.A. 34561/2025
MASTER DEVARSH
Son of Ms. Sapna Jain
Resident of: 253, SFS DDA Flats,
Mukherjee Apartment,
Dr Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi-110009
minor. Through his mother
Ms. Sapna Jain as Next Friend
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.K Manan, Sr Adv along with Mr.
Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Adv, Mr. Sachin
Jain, Ms. Uditi Bali, Adv, Mr. K.S
Choudhary, Adv, Mr. Lavish, Adv and
Ms. Tanya, Advocate.
versus
1. UNION OF INDIA
Through Ministry of Home Affairs
(Through its Secretary)
10, Janpath Road,
North Block Central Secretariat,
Janpath Road Area,
Motilal Nehru Marg Area, New Delhi 110001
2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Delhi Police Headquarters,
MSO Building, Indraprastha Marg
IP Estate, New Delhi-110095
3. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Through Secretary
W.P.(CRL) 1092/2019 & Connected matter Page 1 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:27.02.2026
18:20:22
Delhi Secretariat
IP Estate, Delhi-110002
4. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES
F-17, Karkardooma, Delhi-110032
Through its director
5. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA (NOW NATIONAL MEDICAL
COMMISSION)
Through its chairman, e
Pocket- 14 , Sector – 8, Dwarka Phase -1
New Delhi – 110077
6. DELHI MEDICAL COUNCIL
Now at Ground Floor, B Wing, B Block-1
DMRC IT Park, Shastri Park
New Delhi-110053
7. DR. RITU VERMA (ADDED VIDE ORDER DATED 04.05.2022)
1516, Ground Floor, Outram lanes
Kingsway camp, Delhi-110009
8. DR. VIVEK JAIN (ADDED VIDE ORDER DATED 04.05.2022)
KU-29, Pitampurs
New Delhi-110088
9. DR AKHILESH SINGH (ADDED VIDE ORDER DATED
19.04.2023)
D-251, Second Floor, Defence Colony,
New Delhi -110024
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. T Singhdev, Mr. Vedant Sood,
Advocates for R2.
Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Tanishq
Srivastava, Mr Abhijit Chakravarty, Mr.
Bhanu Gulati, Ms. Yamini Singh, Mr.
Sourabh Kumar, Mr. Vedant Sood, Ms.
Ramanpreet Kaur, Advocates for R5.
Mr. Praveen Khattar & Mr. Pritam
Kumar Adv. for R6.
Mr. Arjun Dewan and Mr. Jasraj Singh
W.P.(CRL) 1092/2019 & Connected matter Page 2 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:27.02.2026
18:20:22
Chhabra, Advocates for R7 to R9.
Mr. Ripudaman Bharadwaj CGSC with
Mr. Kushagra Kumar and Adv. Mr. Amit
Kumar Rana, Advocates for UOI.
+ W.P.(CRL) 3537/2019, CRL.M.A. 26014/2022
1. DR. RITU VERMA
d/o Madan Mohan Verma,
r/o 1516/ Ground Floor,
Oulram Lines, Kings way Camp,
Delhi - 110009
2. DR. AKHILESH SINGH
s/o Mr. Ramesh Singh,
r/o Flat No - 26, 4ih Floor,
Block - AE, Shalimar Bagh,
New Delhi - 110088
3. DR. VIVEK JAIN
s/o Mr. Suresh Jain,
r/o KU -29, Pitampura,
New Delhi - 110088
.....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Arjun Dewan and Mr. Jasraj Singh
Chhabra, Advocates.
versus
1. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Through the office of Standing- Counsel
2. SMT. SAPNA JAIN
C-706, Kenwood Towers,
Charmwood Village,
Suraj Kund, Faridabad - 121009
Also at Plat No.253,
SFS DDA Flats,
Mukherjee Apartment,
Dr. Mukherjee Nagar,
Delhi -110009
....Respondents
W.P.(CRL) 1092/2019 & Connected matter Page 3 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:27.02.2026
18:20:22
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC for the
State.
Mr. K.K Manan, Senior Advocate along
with Mr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Adv,
Mr. Sachin Jain, Adv, Ms. Uditi Bali,
Adv, Mr. K.S Choudhary, Adv, Mr.
Lavish, Ms. Tanya, Advocates for R2.
Mr. Ripudaman Bharadwaj CGSC with
Mr. Kushagra Kumar and Adv. Mr. Amit
Kumar Rana, Advocates for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. The aforesaid two Writ Petitions have been filed in regard to the
Petitioner, Master Devarsh having suffered alleged medical negligence
and injury of infantile spasm, severe epilepsy, physical disabilities and
mental retardation, on account of the alleged negligence of Fortis Hospital,
Shalimar Bagh and its Doctors.
2. Writ Petition (Crl.) No.1092/2019 filed on behalf of the Petitioner,
Master Devarsh seeks directions for proper investigations and action
against the erring Doctors.
3. W.P. (Crl.) 3537/2019 has been filed by the Petitioners, Dr. Ritu
Verma, Dr. Akhilesh Singh, Dr. Vivek Jain seeking quashing of the FIR
No.0480/2019 dated 01.10.2019 under Section 336/337 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) P.S. Shalimar Bagh
registered against them and is pending investigations.
4. The brief facts are that Master Devarsh was delivered on 12.08.2017
at Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh. At the time of C-Section delivery, the
W.P.(CRL) 1092/2019 & Connected matter Page 4 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:27.02.2026
18:20:22
child suffered severe Asphysia (hypoxic injury), leading to complete
damage of the brain of the new born child.
5. The child was kept in Neonatal ICU for 11 days and was thereafter,
discharged by the Hospital vide Discharge Summary which indicated “Baby
has no neurological concern throughout stay”.
6. In the Petition filed on behalf of Master Devarsh, it was asserted that
there was absolute lack of coordination and due diligence in handling the
delivery of the child by the concerned Doctors and staff of the Hospital,
leading to the hypoxic injury about which the parents of the child were kept
in complete dark and the child was handed over to them as a fit and normal
baby. Immediately after discharge, the parents found the child suffering
from some jerks. They took the child to the Consulting Doctor, who advised
them to ignore the jerks.
7. It was claimed that from his birth on 12.08.2017 till March, 2018 i.e.
for about 8 months, the child was speechless, he kept writhing in unbearable
pain in his head, but there was no clue to the parents that he had undergone
brain haemorrhage at the time of birth. Eventually, the child started missing
the desired milestones and his body started getting more and more stiff.
8. The parents took the child once again to the Doctor, who then finally
declared after a lapse of significant time which was crucial for the normal
growth of the child, that he is a special needs child and needs to be shown to
a Neurological Paediatrician for further treatment.
9. The EEG and MRI of the child was conducted and it was revealed
that he was suffering from rare disease called “West Syndrome” caused due
to severe damage in the brain. It was then unravelled that the child suffered
the Brain Haemorrhage due to asphyxia, at the time of birth. He is dependent
W.P.(CRL) 1092/2019 & Connected matter Page 5 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:27.02.2026
18:20:22
upon painful and harsh Occupational Therapies and is surviving on bitter in
pungent medicines including steroids.
10. A Criminal Complaint was made to the Police under Section 308,
325, 338, 193, 201, 406, 420, 471, 120-B, 34 IPC against Fortis Hospital, its
Management and the Doctors for causing grave injury to the brain of the
child and keeping it concealed from the parents. No action was taken by the
Police. Eventually, a Complaint along with an Application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C was filed before the learned M.M. Rohini Courts. However,
despite efforts, no fruitful action has been taken.
11. It is further asserted that a Complaint was made to DGHS (Director
General Health Services) and Health Minister, Govt. of NCT of Delhi for
taking action against the erring Hospital and for causing injury to the child,
orchestrating false Medical Records and withholding the OT Notes. The
cognizance was taken by the Hon’ble Minister, who directed a detailed
Enquiry through Panel of Experts and to furnish a factual Report within 12
days.
12. The Director, DGHS was obligated to constitute the Board and get the
opinion, but nothing in the matter has been done and it has been deferred for
indefinite time. The Board was supposed to have three Members, but none
of them was an expert in the field. To make a complete farce of the
proceedings, two of the three members were missing and one who was
present, was not concerned about the gravity of the situation. Due to this
apathetic and lackadaisical attitude of the Authorities towards the
fundamental rights of the child, the Writ Petition had been preferred in the
Court.
W.P.(CRL) 1092/2019 & Connected matter Page 6 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:27.02.2026
18:20:22
13. The main grounds agitated in the Writ Petition on behalf of the
Petitioner, Master Devarsh are that all the doors have been virtually shut by
the Respondent, by denying the investigation into the brain injury caused to
the Petitioner who is a victim of low levels of ethics, standards to which the
Corporate Hospitals have descended. The injury that was sustained by the
child during birth, has undergone various physical and biological changes
and the desperate delay caused by the Respondents, had rendered the entire
process of investigation as redundant.
14. There was a prima facie case for commission of the offence under
IPC, despite which no FIR was registered. The Police has not been
cooperating and investigating the matter with sensitivity. The Doctors till
date, have denied to give any opinion in writing regarding the injuries
suffered by the child as the same might go against the other Doctors of the
Hospital. The Court cannot proceed unless the Medical Opinion is given by
a Doctor. It has become a vicious circle where it has become almost
impossible for the victim to get justice.
15. The DGHS under the aegis of Govt. of NCT of Delhi has shown a
bias in favour of the offending Hospital, which has resulted in travesty of
justice against the victim of crime. The matter has been deferred for 8
months without any proceedings. A Board was constituted sans experts of
adequate strength. The two of its three members were missing in the first
and last meeting. An attempt has been made to the Respondents to give an
unlawful quietus to the matter.
16. The Delhi Medical Council (“DMC”) on the other hand, has done
injustice to numerous victims who approach the Council in pursuit of
justice. The Medical Council has given clean chit to the Doctors of Max
W.P.(CRL) 1092/2019 & Connected matter Page 7 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:27.02.2026
18:20:22
Hospital. In a recent case there was similar medical negligence of the
Doctors of Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh. In December, 2017 they handed
over twins as dead, but one child was found to be alive.
17. The conduct of Medical Council and DGHS in deliberately
obstructing the cause of justice, is in complete violation of fundamental
rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Reliance is placed on CESC Ltd. vs. Subhash Chandra Bose, (1992) 1 SCC
441, wherein it was held that Article 21 of Constitution recognises the right
to live with human dignity. The physical and mental health have to be
treated as integral part of right to life.
18. The Constitution Bench in Common Cause vs. Union of India, 2018
(1) SCC 1 held that the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of
Constitution of India is meaningless unless it encompasses the sphere of
individual dignity.
19. A prayer is, therefore, made for appointment of an independent
Committee of Medical Experts comprising Radio-neurologists and
Neurological Paediatrician to opine about the nature of injury and on
medical condition of the child and prognosis to transfer the Complaint to
CBI or any other competent Agency other than the Police for carrying out
the time bound probe into the incident.
20. W.P. (Crl.) 3537/2019 under Article 226/227 Constitution of India
read with Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by Dr. Ritu Verma and two
other Doctors, for quashing of FIR No.0480/2019 dated 01.10.2019 on the
ground that there was no negligence on the part of the Doctors. The DMC
in its Report dated 13.08.2019, had categorically held that there was no
negligence in the treatment of the baby.
W.P.(CRL) 1092/2019 & Connected matter Page 8 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:27.02.2026
18:20:22
21. In Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2005 SC 3180, Supreme
Court has held that before proceeding against the Doctor accused of rash or
negligent act or omission, the Investigating Officer should obtain an
independent and competent medical opinion , preferably from a Doctor in
Government Service qualified in that Branch of medical practice, who can
normally be expected to give an impartial and unbiased opinion. The
Petitioner stand exonerated of any negligence in the treatment of the child,
by the DMC Report.
22. Even though the Status Report of the Investigating Officer dated
04.09.2019 and the opinion of the Medical Board dated 13.08.2019 reflected
that there was no medical negligence attributable to the Petitioner, the FIR
has been directed to be registered against them.
23. Reliance is placed on Shri Subhkaran Luharuka & Anr. vs. State &
Anr ., (2010) 170 DLT 516; Maksud Saiyed vs. State of Gujarat and Ors .,
(2008) 5 SCC 668; and Anil Kumar and Ors. vs. A.K. Aiyappa , (2013) 10
SCc 705 to say that there must be application of mind before directing
registration of FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
24. Similar observations have been made by the Supreme Court in the
case of Priyanka Srivastava and Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors .,
(2015) 6 SCC 287.
25. The importance of Preliminary Enquiry in cases of medical
negligence has been emphasized by the Supreme Court in the case Lalita
Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors ., (2004) 2 SCC 1.
26. In the present case, a Preliminary Enquiry by way of an opinion, has
been sought from Medical Board on the Complaint, by Investigating
Agency. The Medical Board had given an opinion of “No Negligence”.
W.P.(CRL) 1092/2019 & Connected matter Page 9 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:27.02.2026
18:20:22
Therefore, the registration of FIR was erroneous and without any basis or
justification. It has not been considered that there exists no possible way of
determining the time when the Hypoxic injury was suffered by the child,
which is an accepted medical principle. In layman’s terms, it refers to a
brain injury suffered as a result of oxygen deprivation. During the stay of the
child in the NICU in the Hospital, he was put on respiratory support
immediately after birth and 6 days thereafter. There was no occasion for the
child to be deprived of Oxygen at the Hospital. The hypoxic injury could
have occurred at any period beginning from the time the child was in the
womb of the mother. There is no method to ascertain the cause and time of
hypoxic injury. Therefore, there is no requirement of scientific
investigations and the directions for registration of FIR, was without basis.
27. The learned M.M. while directing registration of FIR, failed to
consider that the allegations that treating Doctor failed to conduct tests like
MRI or EEG on the baby, is fallacious. It is submitted that the Tests such as
Blood count, Liver, Kidney and Respiration were conducted on the child.
Tests like MRI and EEG, are conducted only on persons where there is an
indication of Neurological concern. The child during the 12 days stay in
NICU, did not display any sign of Neurological concern and there was no
occasion to conduct the aforesaid Tests.
28. In the case of V. Krishan Rao vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital,
2010 5 SCC 513, the Supreme Court had emphasized the importance of
obtaining the opinion of another Doctor before proceeding with criminal
investigation. In Krishna Dixit vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors ., W.P.
(Cr.) No.146 of 2016, the High Court of Chhattisgarh held that the principles
laid down by the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew, (supra) and Martin F.
W.P.(CRL) 1092/2019 & Connected matter Page 10 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:27.02.2026
18:20:22
D’Souza, (supra) for registration of Criminal Case against a Doctor, an
Expert opinion from a qualified Doctor must be obtained before directing
registration of FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Hence, the Petition/Doctors
sought the quashing of the FIR.
29. The initial Status Report had been filed by the SHO, Shalimar Bagh
was followed by a detailed Status Report dated 27.08.2022 . It has been
explained in the Status Report that Complaint dated 09.07.2018 was
received from Complainant, Sapna Jain (Mother of Petitioner, Master
Devarsh), in Police Station Shalimar Bagh. It was stated by her in the
Complaint that she was taking treatment of her pregnancy from Dr. Ritu
Verma since beginning. On 12.08.2017 seeing the Ultra Sound Report, she
planned an emergency C-Section. She was admitted in the Fortis Hospital
and on the same day i.e. 12.08.2017 the Petitioner, Master Devarsh was
delivered at 09:56 P.M by Dr. Ritu Verma, (Paediatrician), Dr. Akhilesh
(Anaesthetist) and other assisting Doctors and staff of the Hospital.
30. As per the Complaint, there was some tense atmosphere in the O.T.,
but the Complainant was unable to comprehend anything. The child was
shifted to NICU around 11 P.M. The Complainant was informed by the
Doctors that the baby had not cried for some time after birth and he was put
on CPAP and would be kept in ICU for a few days. The child remained in
the ICU for today 12 days, during which period he was treated by different
doctors and nurses, as appointed by the Management of the Hospital. He
was finally discharged on 23.08.2017 with false Fitness Certificate by the
Hospital, thereby giving an impression that the child was Neurologically
fine. During 23-25 August, 2017 while the child was at home, it was noticed
that he had some jerks.
W.P.(CRL) 1092/2019 & Connected matter Page 11 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:27.02.2026
18:20:22
31. Dr. Vivek Jain was consulted on 25.08.2018 who after check-up,
ignored the symptoms and observed that there was nothing significant with
the child and he was 100/100 fit. The Complaint asserted that after about 6-
7 months, the child stopped recognizing the Complainant. They got the MRI
and EEG of the child conducted. It was revealed in EEG, that the child
suffered from severe Epilepsy.
32. A shocking fact was revealed that the child had suffered Hypoxic
injury during birth and was suffering from West Syndrome i.e. Brain
retardation and severe Epilepsy due to bleeding in the brain. However, the
cause of injury was not disclosed to them, by the Doctors. The negligence
of Doctors on 12.08.2017 and gross criminal conduct of the Management
and Hospital in screening the truth for 12 days stay in ICU and even
thereafter, for all these months caused irreparable injury to the brain and
health of the child.
33. The Complainant further asserted that the records supplied to them by
the Directors have been fabricated by the alleged persons with malafide
intent to mislead medical Council and the Court proceedings.
34. On the Complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, the learned M.M
directed on 27.09.2019 to register the FIR. Consequently, FIR No.0480/2019
dated 01.10.2019 under Section 336/337 IPC was registered at Police
Station Shalimar Bagh.
35. After the registration of FIR, the Complainant procured the medical
treatment papers of the child, which have been examined during the
investigations. Notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C dated 14.11.2019 was served
on Dr. Ritu Verma, who instead of joining the investigations has filed W.P.
No.3537/2019 for quashing of the FIR.
W.P.(CRL) 1092/2019 & Connected matter Page 12 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:27.02.2026
18:20:22
36. During the investigations, Dr. Ritu Verma gave a Reply which was
received on 17.02.2020. It was stated in the Reply that “ it is not a practice
at her Clinic to retain any prescription or any record given to the patients ”.
37. Dr. Vivek Jain (HOD) Neonatal was also served with a Notice under
section 91 Cr.P.C on 26.02.2020 who replied that prescriptions in original
are handed over to the patients and he had electronic copy of two
prescriptions, but the manually written advice would not be included in the
same.
38. Likewise, Notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C was issued to Fortis
Hospital on 27.02.2020, to obtain the details of the Doctors and other
alleged staff Officers of the Organization.
39. Reply dated 09.03.2022 has been received from the Hospital . Notice
of the Complaint was also served on the Complainant with queries and
questions other than the Complaint, so that the same may be put before the
Board.
40. It has been further explained that as technical opinion is required
whether the negligence occurred and if any, then to what extent. A proper
correspondence vide Letter dated 13.12.2019 was made for the formation of
the Medical Board to All India Institute of Medical Sciences. However,
AIIMS rejected the request and stated that they constitute Medical Boards
only in exceptional cases and that too on the directions of Supreme Court,
High Court, National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission etc. vide its
Letter dated 18.12.2019. Thereafter, on the directions of the learned M.M.,
Medical Superintendent, AIIMS was directed to constitute a Medical Board
afresh, to ascertain the negligence and false conducted during the trial.
W.P.(CRL) 1092/2019 & Connected matter Page 13 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:27.02.2026
18:20:22
41. The relevant papers and documents were sent to M.S., AIIMS on
11.09.2021 requesting for constitution of Medical Board. M.S., AIIMS
intimated to the learned M.M., Rohini Court on 16.09.2021 that the Legal
Authority to investigate, re-examine the case of the alleged negligence
which has already been examined by DMC, would be National Medical
Commission and accordingly, requested that the matter be referred to NMC.
42. The Application was filed by the I.O. before the learned M.M. to issue
the directions to National Medical Commission for constitution of a Medical
Board which was allowed vide Order dated 21.09.2021. However, National
Medical Commission in its Letter dated 02.12.2021 stated that it was not
empowered under the provision of NMC Act, 2019 to provide any opinion in
regard to initiation of criminal proceedings as well as it was not the
Appellate Body of the DMC and the matter may be referred back to AIIMS
Hospital for constitution of Medical Board.
43. Further investigations were done by serving Notice to Dr. Ritu
Verma, Hospital and other persons. The copy of Discharge Summary of
other child born one month prior to 12.08.2017 and Contract documents of
Dr. Ritu Verma, were collected.
44. Notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C dated 27.07.2022 was served on Dr.
Vivek Jain to explain about 100/100 remark to Baby of Sapna Jain, as per
the Prescription Slip dated 25.08.2017. It was explained that 100/100 remark
was for the progress since discharge, as the baby was doing well at home.
45. Further investigations were carried out and Request Letter dated
01.06.2022 was sent to Deputy Secretary, Health and Family Welfare
Department, GNCT, Delhi for referring the matter to competent Hospital. It
was referred to Govind Vallabh Pant Hospital on 14.06.2022 which stated
W.P.(CRL) 1092/2019 & Connected matter Page 14 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:27.02.2026
18:20:22
that they were not having any Gynaecology or Paediatric Department and
were unable to constitute the Medical Board.
46. The matter was then referred to Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi Gate . The
Medical Boards have been constituted, but every time the Doctors have
sought exclusion on the ground that the Complainant on one ground or the
other. A request was, therefore, made that further directions be given for re-
constitution of Medical Bard to get the opinion about the medical
negligence.
47. In the Status Report dated 11.01.2023 filed in the Writ Petition of Dr.
Ritu Verma and other doctors, the entire facts as detailed earlier were
reiterated.
48. It is also submitted that vide Order dated 22.12.2022, the Court noted
that despite several requests of Complainant and her husband blood gas
report as well as resuscitation notes were not recovered by the I.O. and
SHO.
49. Thus, a question arose that whether it is standard procedure for the
hospital to make a note with regard to the neurological condition of a new
born child without conducting the necessary test like MRI and EEG test. In
compliance of the Order dated 22. 12.2022, a letter dated 04.01.2023 was
issued to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Delhi seeking opinion on the said
question. The opinion from Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Delhi is still
awaited.
50. Lastly, it was stated that the investigation is still at the nascent stage
and is yet to be concluded.
51. The Complainant submitted the Written Submissions , wherein it was
asserted that there was a gross concealment of facts, fabrication of medical
W.P.(CRL) 1092/2019 & Connected matter Page 15 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:27.02.2026
18:20:22
records, destruction of evidence and deprivation of the child of proper
treatment for many months which aggravated the brain damage. Such
actions amount to cognizable offences and are not reliable to be treated as a
case of medical negligence as envisaged in the case of Jacob Mathew,
(supra).
52. It is a fact that the accused Dr. Vivek Jain and Dr. Akhilesh Singh,
were indeed found to be quacks. They falsely treated the child, while he was
in Neonatal ICU as Speciality Doctors. They have been falsely practising as
Specialists without possessing the requisite qualifications. The Judgment of
Jacob Mathew, (supra) is not applicable to the Accused Doctors; rather it
incriminates them.
53. The Complainant has further stated that a Closure Report has been
filed in the FIR in which a Protest Petition has already been filed by the
Complainant. It is claimed that the Police did not act fairly and acted in
apparent influence of the accused persons. The Complainant on the strength
of incriminating evidence collected by them, have filed the Protest Petition,
which is pending consideration.
54. Moreover, the Order passed by DMC in favour of the Accused
persons on the basis of which quashing is sought, has already been stayed by
the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C)15/2020. The Accused
persons have got themselves impleaded in the proceedings and are well
aware of the Order, but have failed to place the said Order on record. There
is concealment of subsequent events and documents. The documents which
have been filed in W.P. 1092/2019 has not been placed on record in these
Writ Petitions .
W.P.(CRL) 1092/2019 & Connected matter Page 16 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:27.02.2026
18:20:22
55. In the end, it is stated that a Judicial Order cannot be challenged by
way of the Writ Petition.
Submissions heard and record perused .
56. The main grievance of the Petitioner, Master Devarsh in the Writ
Petition filed through his mother, was that an FIR be directed to be
registered on account of medical negligence and lack of proper treatment
being given to the child at the time of his birth, resulting in hypoxic injury
and consequent neurological disorder.
57. However, it is evident from record that FIR No.0480/2019 dated
01.10.2019 under Section 336/337 IPC, P.S. Shalimar Bagh had already
been registered on the directions of the learned M.M. under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C.
58. It has further come on record that various directions had been given
by the learned M.M. for constituting a Medical Board for giving the medical
opinion, which eventually was constituted at Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital,
Delhi. The opinion from said Hospital pursuant to Order dated 22.12.2022 is
also awaited. Therefore, the grievance of the Petitioner, Master Devarsh
about taking proper legal action and registration of FIR, stood addressed.
59. In so far as the quashing of FIR is concerned , it has come on record
that a Closure Report has been filed by the Police and Protest Petition has
been filed by the Complainant. Therefore, there survives nothing for the
quashing of the FIR, in terms of the Closure Report. The Complainant is
already pursuing her remedy in accordance with law and has filed the
Protest Petition .
60. It does not need to be emphasized that whatever is the outcome of the
Protest Petition, the parties would have a remedy in accordance with law.
W.P.(CRL) 1092/2019 & Connected matter Page 17 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:27.02.2026
18:20:22
The filing of a Protest Petition by the Complainant indicates that the
statutory remedy is being actively pursued. Any interference at this stage,
would amount to pre-empting the judicial determination pending before the
competent Court.
61. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be urged
before the competent Court, in accordance with law. No further directions
are merited in the aforesaid two Writ Petitions, which are hereby, disposed
of along with the pending Application(s).
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
FEB RUARY 26, 2026
VA
W.P.(CRL) 1092/2019 & Connected matter Page 18 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:27.02.2026
18:20:22