Facts
The petitioner’s wife died after undergoing laparoscopic myomectomy on 22 February 2025 and being transferred to another hospital; she died the following day.
Source reference: p. 3–4The petitioner alleged medical negligence and sought registration of an FIR.
Source reference: p. 1–2In an earlier petition, the High Court had directed the Commissioner of Police to decide the petitioner’s representation dated 1 May 2025, preferably within eight weeks, but the representation remained undecided.
Source reference: p. 3–4In the present proceedings, the State placed before the Court a medical-board opinion concluding that the treatment had been proper and that there was no criminal negligence.
Source reference: p. 4–6Issues
Whether, in light of the medical-board opinion finding no criminal negligence, the Court should direct the police to register an FIR against the treating medical officers.
Source reference: p. 5–8Whether the failure to decide the petitioner’s representation within the period contemplated by the earlier order warranted further relief in the present petition.
Source reference: p. 3–5Law Applied
The Court relied on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1.
Source reference: p. 6–8In prosecutions alleging criminal rashness or negligence by medical professionals, an investigating officer should obtain an independent and competent medical opinion—preferably from a qualified government doctor in the relevant branch—before proceeding against the doctor; a private complaint should be supported by credible medical opinion.
Source reference: p. 6–8The Court also noted the Supreme Court’s warning against using criminal proceedings to harass or pressure medical professionals.
Source reference: p. 6–8Reasoning
The Court considered the medical-board opinion, which discussed possible complications associated with vasopressin and the patient’s post-operative condition, but concluded that the treatment had been proper and that there was no criminal negligence.
Source reference: p. 5–6Applying Jacob Mathew, the Court held that an FIR against the medical officers could not be directed merely on the petitioner’s allegation where the competent medical opinion did not support criminal negligence.
Source reference: p. 6–8The earlier order required the Commissioner of Police to decide the representation; it did not itself direct registration of an FIR.
Source reference: p. 3–4Holding
The Court declined to direct registration of an FIR and dismissed the petition, concluding that the medical-board opinion disclosed no criminal negligence warranting prosecution on the material before it.
The petition was dismissed accordingly; no further relief was granted.
Source reference: p. 8Acts & Sections Cited
6 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20235
Indian Penal Code, 18601
Original Court PDF
AMIT SUBHASH MOHEKARvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
