Prosecution under Section 166B IPC cannot continue where allegations are malicious and the grievance stands redressed.

The petitioner, a contractual Staff Nurse at Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College and Hospital, Bhagalpur, alleged that she suffered a needle-prick injury while assisting in an operation on a patient infected with Hepatitis B. Despite informing the hospital authorities and requesting administration of the prescribed HBIG injection, the injection was allegedly not provided. She subsequently arranged the injection herself. Although the authorities later paid her ₹20,700 as compensation after approximately one and a half months, she was issued a show-cause notice for speaking to the media, and her contractual engagement was not renewed

The petitioner filed a complaint alleging, inter alia, commission of an offence under Section 166B of the Indian Penal Code. The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. on 28 September 2015. The petitioner’s criminal revision was dismissed by the District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, on 25 May 2016. She thereafter invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of both orders

1. Whether the allegations in the complaint, the complainant’s solemn affirmation, and the inquiry witnesses disclosed the ingredients of an offence under Section 166B IPC so as to require summoning of Opposite Party No. 2?

2. Whether the orders dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. and the revision petition warranted interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.?

3. Whether the prosecution against Opposite Party No. 2 was malicious or vexatious in view of the subsequent payment of compensation and the petitioner’s alleged grievance regarding non-renewal of her contractual engagement?

The Court considered Section 166B IPC, which penalises failure by a public servant or a person in charge of a hospital to comply with the statutory requirements relating to treatment of victims, read with Section 357C Cr.P.C.

It also applied Section 203 Cr.P.C., under which a Magistrate may dismiss a complaint if, after considering the complainant’s statement and the inquiry material, there is insufficient ground for proceeding, and Section 482 Cr.P.C., which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice.

The Court further applied the principle that a prosecution which is malicious and vexatious, particularly where the underlying grievance has been redressed and the criminal process is being used for an ulterior dispute, should not be permitted to continue.

The Court examined the petitioner’s allegations concerning the non-provision of the HBIG injection and the submissions regarding Section 166B IPC.

It accepted the defence contention that the statutory ingredients of Section 166B IPC were not established in the circumstances of the case, particularly in relation to contravention of the requirements connected with Section 357C Cr.P.C.

The Court also considered that the petitioner had received ₹20,700 from the authorities within approximately one and a half months, and concluded that her principal grievance appeared to relate to the non-renewal of her contractual engagement rather than a continuing failure to provide treatment.

On that basis, it characterised the prosecution as malicious and vexatious and found no reason to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to interfere with the Magistrate’s or revisional court’s orders.

The Court declined to interfere with the order dated 28 September 2015 dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. and the revisional order dated 25 May 2016. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit.