Statutory remedy via protest petition precludes writ intervention against closure report in medical negligence investigation.

Master Devarsh, through his mother, alleged medical negligence during his birth via C-section on August 12, 2017, at Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh.

It was alleged that the child suffered severe Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy (brain injury) leading to "West Syndrome," which the hospital intentionally concealed by issuing a fit discharge summary.

A criminal complaint led to the registration of FIR No. 0480/2019 under Sections 336/337 IPC following an order by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

The accused doctors (Respondents in the first petition and Petitioners in the second) sought quashing of the FIR, citing a Delhi Medical Council (DMC) report that exonerated them.

During the pendency of these writ petitions, the police filed a Closure Report, to which the complainant filed a Protest Petition.

Whether the court should direct an independent medical investigation and further action against the doctors in light of alleged bias in the existing inquiry.

Whether the FIR against the doctors should be quashed on the grounds of the DMC's "no negligence" report and established precedents protecting medical professionals.

The court primarily considered the guidelines for prosecuting medical professionals established in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, which requires an independent medical opinion before proceeding with criminal charges.

It also referenced Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh regarding the application of mind and the necessity of preliminary inquiry under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

Furthermore, the court acknowledged the constitutional right to health and dignity under Article 21, as affirmed in Common Cause v. Union of India.

Statutes applied included Sections 336 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The court observed that the primary grievance of the victim—the registration of an FIR and commencement of investigation—had already been addressed through the Ld. MM’s orders.

The court noted the procedural difficulties encountered in forming an independent medical board at AIIMS and GTB Hospital but emphasized that the judicial process was already in motion.

Regarding the doctors' plea for quashing, the court found that since the police had already filed a Closure Report and the complainant had subsequently filed a Protest Petition, the matter was now within the domain of the competent trial court.

The court reasoned that interfering at this stage would pre-empt the statutory remedy and judicial determination currently pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate.

It held that since an FIR had been registered and the investigation had culminated in a Closure Report challenged by a Protest Petition, the parties must pursue their remedies before the competent trial court.

All rights and contentions were left open for the parties to urge during the Protest Petition proceedings.

The court effectively declined to quash the FIR or order a new CBI/independent probe, leaving the final determination of negligence to the existing statutory framework.