A magistrate cannot mechanically take cognizance on a protest petition without assessing material expert evidence.

The minor daughter of the second respondent underwent ear surgery at Prasad ENT Hospital, developed complications, was referred to Sugam Hospital and then Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, and died on 17 February 2023.

The post-mortem attributed death to the combined effect of sepsis and occlusive coronary artery disease.

Police initially registered Crime No.122 of 2023 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and, relying on a Medical Expert Committee opinion that there was no medical negligence, filed a closure report.

The second respondent filed a protest petition, which the Magistrate treated as a private complaint and took cognizance against eight accused, including the petitioner, A4, for offences including conspiracy and other IPC offences.

The petitioner sought quashing under Section 528 of the BNSS.

1. Whether the Magistrate’s order taking cognizance on the protest petition, and issuing summons in C.C.No.333 of 2025, was liable to be quashed.

2. Whether the proceedings could be quashed for all accused, including those who had not themselves petitioned for quashing.

The petition was brought under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to seek quashing.

The FIR had originally been registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Court considered the alleged IPC offences, the post-mortem report and the Medical Expert Committee’s opinion; it found that the materials did not disclose medical negligence or the essential ingredients of conspiracy, common intention, or the other alleged offences.

The judgment cites no precedent or specific statutory test governing review of cognizance on a protest petition.

The Court relied on the post-mortem report and the Medical Expert Committee’s conclusion that the treatment records disclosed no medical negligence, and found no material showing a meeting of minds or concerted action among the accused.

It further held that the Magistrate had taken cognizance without examining witnesses or adequately considering the expert opinion, and had relied on the complainant’s objections concerning delayed service of the closure report and the alleged alteration or inadequacy of the expert opinion.

In the Court’s view, the resulting order was mechanical and infirm.

Although only the petitioner had sought quashing, the Court extended the relief to all accused in order to meet the ends of justice.

Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.