Medical opinion based on diagnostic reports lacks dishonest intent, precluding criminal prosecution for cheating and breach of trust.

The petitioner, a medical practitioner, challenged a revisional order upholding a Magistrate's decision to take cognizance of offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC

The complainant alleged that on March 5, 2013, the petitioner provided incorrect medical advice by recommending a medical termination of pregnancy based on an ultrasound report and accepted a fee of Rs. 2,500/- for the procedure

The complainant did not undergo the procedure and later delivered a healthy child, subsequently alleging that the petitioner’s advice was intentionally fraudulent

The petitioner argued that the advice was a professional opinion based on third-party reports and that the essential elements of criminal intent were missing

1. Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner for medical advice rendered in a professional capacity constitutes an abuse of the process of the court

2. Whether the allegations in the complaint satisfy the essential ingredients of "criminal breach of trust" under Section 406 or "cheating" under Section 420 of the IPC

The court applied the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of legal processes

The court relied on Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh to define the sine qua non for cheating, which requires fraudulent or dishonest inducement from the very inception of a transaction

It further cited Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal regarding the requirement of mens rea

It cited the landmark decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which establishes that criminal proceedings may be quashed if the allegations, even if true, do not constitute a prima facie offence

The Court observed that the petitioner’s medical opinion was formed based on an external ultrasound report rather than a unilateral or arbitrary decision

It found that the record lacked evidence of any "entrustment" of property to satisfy Section 406, and there was no proof of deceptive intent at the start of the interaction to satisfy Section 420

The Court noted that the complainant failed to provide independent medical evidence proving the advice was knowingly false or negligent

The lack of mention of the disputed fee in a prior legal notice cast doubt on the claim of financial inducement

The Court determined the dispute was a matter of professional judgment rather than criminal misconduct

The High Court set aside the revisional order dated February 16, 2016, and the Magistrate’s cognizance order dated June 9, 2014. The entire criminal proceeding arising from Complaint Case No. 170 of 2014 was quashed to secure the ends of justice