Criminal proceedings cannot proceed against an attending doctor absent evidence linking him to an undertrial’s escape.

On 16 December 2009, an under-trial prisoner, Manjelal Sahni, escaped from police custody while undergoing treatment in the general ward of Sadar Hospital, Motihari. Five police constables had been deputed to guard him, and certain family members were allegedly present at the hospital when he escaped through the toilet window.

The police registered Motihari Town P.S. Case No. 416 of 2009 under Sections 224, 225 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the escaped prisoner and others.

The petitioner, a Government doctor posted at Sadar Hospital, had treated the under-trial prisoner in the ordinary course of his official duties. He was neither named in the FIR nor implicated in the original charge-sheet, but was subsequently arraigned on the basis of a supplementary charge-sheet.

By order dated 23 May 2013, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, took cognizance of offences under Sections 224, 225 and 120-B IPC and issued process against the petitioner.

The petitioner invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction seeking quashing of the cognizance order and consequential proceedings.

1. Whether the material collected during investigation disclosed a prima facie case against the petitioner for offences under Sections 224, 225 and 120-B IPC in connection with the under-trial prisoner’s escape?

2. Whether the petitioner’s routine treatment and follow-up of the under-trial prisoner, as the attending Government doctor, could constitute resistance, obstruction, assistance or conspiracy relating to the prisoner’s lawful apprehension or escape?

3. Whether the order dated 23 May 2013 taking cognizance and issuing process against the petitioner was liable to be quashed for want of legally sustainable material?

The Court applied Sections 224 and 225 IPC, which respectively concern resistance or obstruction by a person to his own lawful apprehension and resistance or obstruction to the lawful apprehension of another person.

It also considered Section 120-B IPC, which requires material indicating an agreement or concert to commit an offence; mere suspicion or performance of ordinary professional duties is insufficient to establish criminal conspiracy.

The Court further applied the principle governing quashing of criminal proceedings where the allegations and investigation materials, even if accepted, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences or where continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process.

The Court found that the petitioner’s role was limited to examining the prisoner, prescribing medicines and conducting follow-up visits as part of his routine hospital duties.

Admission of the under-trial prisoner had been preceded by a reference from the jail doctor and recommendation by the hospital authorities; therefore, the petitioner could not be held responsible merely because he treated the prisoner or because the prisoner had been admitted to the hospital.

The Court observed that the petitioner had no responsibility for custodial security, which primarily lay with the five police constables deputed to guard the prisoner, although those constables had not been made accused.

There was no allegation in the FIR, and no evidence in the case diary, connecting the petitioner with the prisoner’s escape or with any act of resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension.

Suspicion expressed by the informant regarding the necessity of the prisoner’s hospital admission was held insufficient to constitute legally admissible material against the doctor.

Since the essential ingredients of Sections 224 and 225 IPC were absent and there was no evidence of any agreement or conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC, the Magistrate’s order was held to reflect non-application of judicial mind.

The order dated 23 May 2013 taking cognizance and issuing process against him was accordingly quashed and set aside qua the petitioner, and all criminal proceedings arising from Motihari Town P.S. Case No. 416 of 2009 were quashed to that extent.

The criminal miscellaneous application was allowed.