Disputed medical-negligence allegations requiring factual adjudication cannot be quashed at the threshold.

The petitioners—Dr. Abhishek Pandey, Medical Director and treating doctor at Shreya Hospital, and Manish Rajput, the hospital manager—invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) seeking quashing of FIR No. 0201/2025, the charge-sheet, and the cognizance order.

The prosecution arose from the death of Padma Bai, who sustained a hip fracture after a fall on 10 October 2025 and was admitted to Shreya Hospital on 11 October 2025.

Following examination and investigations, she underwent orthopaedic surgery on 13 October 2025.

On 14 October 2025, her condition allegedly deteriorated; the petitioners claimed that CPR and emergency treatment were administered and that she was advised to be shifted to a higher medical centre because the hospital lacked ventilator facilities.

She was taken to Shankaracharya Medical College, where she was declared dead.

The FIR was registered on 31 December 2025 under Sections 106(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), and the charge-sheet additionally invoked Section 13(क) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Upchar tatha Rog Upchar Adhiniyam, 2010.

Cognizance was thereafter taken by the Magistrate.

The petitioners contended that the prosecution was baseless, that mere death did not establish criminal medical negligence, that no independent expert medical opinion supported the allegations, and that the 78-day delay in lodging the FIR undermined the prosecution case.

The State opposed quashing, submitting that the FIR, investigation material, and charge-sheet disclosed cognizable offences and that disputed questions concerning treatment and causation required adjudication at trial.

1. Whether the FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order, and consequential proceedings disclosed grounds warranting exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.

2. Whether the allegations concerning the petitioners’ treatment of the deceased, including the alleged medical negligence, could be conclusively adjudicated at the stage of a quashing petition.

3. Whether the alleged absence of independent expert medical opinion and the 78-day delay in registration of the FIR justified quashing the criminal proceedings at the threshold.

The Court applied Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The alleged offences arose under Sections 106(1) and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 13(क) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Upchar tatha Rog Upchar Adhiniyam, 2010.

Relying on Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra , 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Court reiterated that quashing is an exceptional power to be exercised sparingly; at the threshold, the Court must determine only whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose a cognizable offence and must not assess their reliability, genuineness, or evidentiary strength.

The Court further relied on Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another , Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 2 September 2025, for the principle that the High Court should not conduct a mini-trial or meticulously evaluate investigation material while considering a petition for quashing.

The Court held that the allegations and investigation material raised disputed factual questions concerning the treatment provided to Padma Bai and the circumstances leading to her death.

These matters could not be conclusively resolved by assessing the petitioners’ defence—namely, that emergency treatment was provided, that CPR was administered, and that shifting was medically advised—in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS.

The Court further found that the alleged delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of an independent expert opinion did not, in the circumstances, completely demolish the prosecution case at the threshold.

Since the charge-sheet had been filed and cognizance had been taken, the allegations required adjudication in accordance with law rather than premature termination through inherent jurisdiction.

Applying the principles in Neharika Infrastructure and Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani , the Court declined to undertake a mini-trial or determine whether the alleged medical negligence would ultimately be proved.

It held that no sufficient ground existed to quash the FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order, or consequential criminal proceedings because the case involved disputed questions of fact requiring trial.

The petition under Section 528 of the BNSS was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.