Dr. Renu Rana vs State Of Bihar and Anr
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43305 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-170 Year-2014 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Samastipur
======================================================
Dr. Renu Rana, Wife of Dr. Rana Vishwa Vijay Singh, Resident of Mohalla-
Ajad Nagar, Mohanpur, P.S.-Samastipur District-Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Priyanka Jaiswal, Wife of Sameer Kumar, resident of Mohalla-Kashipur, P.S.
Nagar, District-Samastipur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Saket Tiwary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasiya, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 24.07.2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as learned APP for the State. Despite service of notice upon
opposite party no.2/ complainant and sufficient opportunity
given to her, no one appeared on her behalf.
2. The present application has been filed under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing the order dated
16.02.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Samastipur
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Revisional Court’) in Criminal
Revision No.1312 of 2014, wherein the learned Revisional
Court upheld the order dated 09.06.2014 passed by the learned
S.D.J.M., Samastipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Magistrate’) in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43305 of 2016 dt.24-07-2026
2/13
connection with Complaint Case No.170 of 2014, wherein the
learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offences punishable
under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in
short ‘IPC’) against the petitioner herein.
3. The prosecution case, as emerging from the
complaint petition, is that the complainant (opposite party no.2),
who claims to be an Advocate by profession, visited the clinic of
the petitioner on 05.03.2013 on account of certain complications
during her pregnancy. It is alleged that after considering the
ultrasound report produced by the complainant, the petitioner
advised her to undergo a medical termination of pregnancy on
payment of a sum of Rs.2,500/-. The complainant alleged that
she deposited the said amount with the petitioner but, on the
advice of her family members, did not undergo the proposed
procedure. It is further alleged that the petitioner thereafter
prescribed certain medicines, which the complainant consumed,
resulting in deterioration of her health. According to the
complainant, when she subsequently consulted another doctor,
she was informed that the foetus was healthy, and she ultimately
delivered a healthy female child on 26.10.2013. Alleging that
the petitioner had deliberately furnished incorrect medical
advice, retained the amount paid by her, the complainant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43305 of 2016 dt.24-07-2026
3/13
instituted Complaint Case No. 170 of 2014.
4. Upon perusal of the complaint petition, the
solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statements of the
inquiry witnesses recorded during the inquiry, the learned
Magistrate, found a prima facie case to be made out and, vide
order dated 09.06.2014, took cognizance of the offences
punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC against the
present petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order of cognizance,
the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.1312 of 2014
before the learned Revisional Court. The learned Revisional
Court, after considering the materials available on record,
dismissed the revision petition vide the impugned order dated
16.02.2016 and affirmed the order of cognizance passed by the
learned Magistrate. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders,
the petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by filing the present application
seeking quashing of the revisional order dated 16.02.2016 and
all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom. The
Coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 26.06.2018
stayed the further proceedings in Complaint Case No. 170 of
2014 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Samastipur.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43305 of 2016 dt.24-07-2026
4/13
the impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate as well as
the learned Revisional Court are wholly unsustainable in the
eyes of law, as the allegations made in the complaint petition,
even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the
ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and
420 of the IPC. It is submitted that there was no entrustment of
any property so as to attract the offence of criminal breach of
trust under Section 406 IPC. Learned counsel further submitted
that there was neither any fraudulent or dishonest inducement
nor any false representation made by the petitioner from the
very inception of the transaction, and, therefore, the essential
ingredients of the offence of cheating punishable under Section
420 IPC are conspicuously absent.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that the petitioner, being a qualified medical
practitioner, merely rendered her professional opinion on the
basis of the ultrasound report produced by the complainant
(opposite party no.2) and prescribed medicines in the course of
treatment. Learned counsel submitted the allegations disclose an
error of medical judgment, which by itself does not constitute a
criminal offence. He further submitted that there is no material
on record to establish payment of Rs.2,500/- to the petitioner, no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43305 of 2016 dt.24-07-2026
5/13
independent medical opinion has been produced to demonstrate
that the medical advice rendered by the petitioner was incorrect
or negligent, and the complaint itself suffers from unexplained
delay. It is also submitted that in the legal notice dated
04.01.2014 served upon the petitioner, there is no mention of
any such amount or sum paid to the petitioner by the opposite
party no.2 (complainant). It is, therefore, submitted that
continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to an
abuse of the process of the Court, warranting interference by
this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C.
7. Learned APP for the State, submitted that
petitioner is a doctor against whom the complainant made
allegation that she had given wrong medical advice, and when
the complainant asked to return the fees taken, she refused to
return the same. He further submitted that appropriate order
may be passed in the facts and circumstances of this case to
secure the ends of justice.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned APP for the State, and upon perusal of the materials
available on record, the principal question that falls for
consideration before this Court is whether the continuation of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43305 of 2016 dt.24-07-2026
6/13
the criminal proceeding against the present petitioner would
amount to an abuse of the process of the Court warranting
exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C.
9. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it
would be apposite to notice the scope of the inherent jurisdiction
of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The power under
Section 482 is of an extraordinary nature and is to be exercised
sparingly, with circumspection and only in exceptional cases to
prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice. At the stage of considering a petition for
quashing, this Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous
appreciation of the evidence or adjudicate upon disputed
questions of fact. The Court is only required to examine whether
the allegations contained in the complaint petition and the
materials brought on record, if taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety, prima facie disclose the commission
of the alleged offences. If the allegations disclose the essential
ingredients of the offences and the issues raised involve
disputed questions requiring appreciation of evidence, the
criminal proceedings ought not to be interdicted in exercise of
the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43305 of 2016 dt.24-07-2026
7/13
Conversely, where the allegations, even if accepted in their
entirety, fail to constitute any offence or the continuation of the
prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of the
Court, the inherent jurisdiction can be invoked to secure the
ends of justice.
10. Upon a careful perusal of the complaint
petition, the solemn affirmation of the complainant and the
statements recorded during the inquiry, this Court finds that the
gravamen of the allegation against the petitioner is that she
rendered an incorrect medical opinion regarding the condition of
the complainant’s (opposite party no.2) pregnancy and advised
medical termination thereof. Significantly, the complaint itself
discloses that the petitioner had not formed such opinion on her
own but had first advised the opposite party no.2 to undergo an
ultrasound examination and thereafter expressed her opinion on
the basis of the ultrasound report produced before her. The
allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, primarily relate to
the correctness of the medical opinion rendered by the petitioner
and do not, by themselves, disclose any material suggesting a
deliberate or dishonest design from the inception.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Race
Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43305 of 2016 dt.24-07-2026
8/13
reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690 has elaborately explained sine
qua non requirement for the offence of cheating, which is as
under:
“36. ………….Similarly, in respect of an
offence under Section 420 IPC, the essential
ingredients are: - 1) deception of any person,
either by making a false or misleading
representation or by other action or by
omission; 2) fraudulently or dishonestly
inducing any person to deliver any property,
or 3) the consent that any persons shall
retain any property and finally intentionally
inducing that person to do or omit to do
anything which he would not do or omit
(see: Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State
of Punjab, (2009) 7 SCC 712 : (2009)
Cr.L.J. 3462 (SC))
37 . Further, in both the aforesaid sections,
mens rea i.e. intention to defraud or the
dishonest intention must be present, and in
the case of cheating it must be there from the
very beginning or inception.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
39. Every act of breach of trust may not
result in a penal offence of criminal breach
of trust unless there is evidence of
manipulating act of fraudulent
misappropriation. An act of breach of trust
involves a civil wrong in respect of which the
person may seek his remedy for damages in
civil courts but, any breach of trust with a
mens rea, gives rise to a criminal
prosecution as well. It has been held in Hari
Prasad Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar Surekha
& Ors., reported in (1973) 2 SCC 823 as
under:
“4.We have heard Mr. Maheshwari on
behalf of the appellant and are of the
opinion that no case has been made out
against the respondents under Section 420
Penal Code, 1860. For the purpose of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43305 of 2016 dt.24-07-2026
9/13
present appeal, we would assume that the
various allegations of fact which have been
made in the complaint by the appellant are
correct. Even after making that allowance,
we find that the complaint does not disclose
the commission of any offence on the part of
the respondents under Section 420 Penal
Code, 1860. There is nothing in the
complaint to show that the respondents had
dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time
the appellant parted with Rs. 35.000/- There
is also nothing to indicate that the
respondents induced the appellant to pay
them Rs. 35,000/- by deceiving him. It is
further not the case of the appellant that a
representation was made, the respondents
knew the same to be false. The fact that the
respondents subsequently did not abide by
their commitment that they would show the
appellant to be the proprietor of Drang
Transport Corporation and would also
render accounts to him in the month of
December might create civil liability on the
respondents for the offence of cheating. ”
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arshad Neyaz
Khan v. State of Jharkhand and Anr., reported in 2025 SCC
Online SC 2508 has held as under:
“17. In Inder Mohan Goswami vs. State of
Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 (“Inder
Mohan Goswami”), while dealing with
Section 420 IPC, this Court observed thus:
“42. On a reading of the aforesaid
section, it is manifest that in the definition
there are two separate classes of acts which
the person deceived may be induced to do. In
the first class of acts he may be induced
fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver
property to any person. The second class of
acts is the doing or omitting to do anything
which the person deceived would not do or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43305 of 2016 dt.24-07-2026
10/13
omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the
first class of cases, the inducement must be
fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class
of acts, the inducing must be intentional but
need not be fraudulent or dishonest.
Therefore, it is the intention which is the gist
of the offence. To hold a person guilty of
cheating it is necessary to show that he had
a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the
time of making the promise. From his mere
failure to subsequently keep a promise, one
cannot presume that he all along had a
culpable intention to break the promise from
the beginning.”
xxxx xxxx xxxx
19. It is settled law that for establishing the
offence of cheating, the
complainant/respondent No.2 was required
to show that the appellant had a fraudulent
or dishonest intention at the time of making
a promise or representation of not fulfilling
the agreement for sale of the said property.
Such a culpable intention right at the
beginning when the promise was made
cannot be presumed but has to be made out
with cogent facts.……. ”
13. It further transpires from the materials available
on record that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged
are conspicuously absent. There is no material to indicate any
entrustment of property so as to attract the offence under
Section 406 of the IPC. Likewise, the complaint does not
disclose that the petitioner made any false representation or
practised deception with a dishonest intention at the very
inception of the transaction so as to constitute the offence of
cheating under Section 420 of the IPC. The allegation regarding
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43305 of 2016 dt.24-07-2026
11/13
payment of Rs.2,500/- also remains unsupported by any
contemporaneous material, and even the legal notice issued by
the complainant prior to the institution of the complaint does not
refer to such payment. Furthermore, no independent medical
opinion or other material has been brought on record to prima
facie indicate that the medical advice rendered by the petitioner
was knowingly false or actuated by any dishonest motive.
14. The principles governing the exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. have been
authoritatively laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. , reported in
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 . The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that
where the allegations made in the complaint, even if taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima
facie constitute any offence or where the criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fides and continuation thereof
would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, the High
Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to
quash such proceedings. In the facts of the present case, as
discussed hereinabove, the allegations levelled against the
petitioner, even if accepted in their entirety, fail to disclose the
essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43305 of 2016 dt.24-07-2026
12/13
406 and 420 of the IPC. The dispute essentially arises from an
alleged medical opinion rendered by the petitioner in the course
of her professional duties, without any prima facie material to
indicate dishonest intention or criminal breach of trust. Thus, the
present case squarely falls within the categories illustratively
enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra) , warranting interference by
this Court to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the
process of law.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court
is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated
16.02.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Samastipur in
Criminal Revision No.1312 of 2014, and the order dated
09.06.2014 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Samastipur in
Complaint Case No.170 of 2014, taking cognizance of the
offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC against the
present petitioner cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the
same are hereby set aside, consequently, the entire criminal
proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.170 of 2014,
against the present petitioner, stands quashed.
16. The present Criminal Miscellaneous
Application is, accordingly, allowed.
17. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43305 of 2016 dt.24-07-2026
13/13
the Court concerned forthwith for needful and compliance.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Harish/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 23.06.2026
Uploading Date
Transmission Date