MP High Court Refuses To Quash Case Against Doctor Accused Of Refusing Treatment To Pregnant Woman

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a government doctor accused of refusing emergency treatment to a pregnant woman who later died while being taken to another hospital, holding that the allegations raise disputed questions of fact that must be examined during trial rather than in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Justice Himanshu Joshi dismissed a petition filed by Dr. Mandavi, a Government Medical Officer, challenging orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tikamgarh, and the revisional court which had taken cognizance of a private complaint filed by complainant Anish Khan. The Court held that the complaint and statements recorded during the preliminary inquiry disclosed a prima facie case requiring adjudication on merits before the trial court.

According to the complaint, Khan’s wife, Jaibun Nisha, developed labour pain and was taken to the Government Hospital at Tikamgarh. The complaint stated that another doctor, Dr. Rekha Badgaiyan, initially attended the patient and advised that surgery was necessary because of her condition. It was alleged that Dr. Mandavi was on emergency duty and was informed about the patient’s condition but did not come to the hospital.

The complainant further alleged that he later approached the doctor at her residence, where she directed him to take the patient to a private nursing home and demanded money for treatment. The complaint claimed that an amount of Rs.50,000 was initially sought and later reduced. When the complainant expressed inability to arrange the money, the doctor allegedly refused to perform the operation. The patient was thereafter referred to the Medical College at Jhansi but died on the way, according to the complaint.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Ankit Saxena argued that the complaint was false and motivated. He submitted that Dr. Mandavi was a public servant discharging official duties and that prosecution could not proceed without prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC. It was also argued that no post-mortem report had been filed to establish the cause of death and that there was no medical material linking the death to any act or omission by the doctor. The petitioner further pointed to the delay of several months in filing the complaint.

The High Court, however, found that these objections could not justify quashing the case at the threshold. The Court observed that the complaint specifically alleged that the patient was in a critical condition requiring immediate intervention and that the doctor failed to attend despite being informed. The complainant had also repeated these allegations in his statement and produced supporting witnesses during the preliminary inquiry.

“At this stage, the Court is not required to assess the truthfulness or otherwise of these allegations,” Justice Joshi observed. The Court added that questions relating to whether treatment was refused, whether money was demanded and whether such conduct had any connection with the patient’s death were matters that required evidence and determination during trial.

Rejecting the argument regarding the absence of a post-mortem report, the Court held that “deficiency in evidence or insufficiency of proof is not a ground for quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold when the complaint otherwise discloses a prima facie case.”

The Court also held that issues relating to delay in filing the complaint and the requirement of sanction under Section 197 CrPC could be examined at the appropriate stage based on evidence. It noted that it could not be conclusively held at this stage that the allegations were acts performed strictly in discharge of official duties.

Finding no patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the courts below, the High Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the proceedings against the doctor, allowing the criminal trial to continue.

The Court emphasized that inherent powers are meant for exceptional situations and cannot be used to conduct a mini trial. Since the complaint disclosed allegations requiring factual examination, the evidence must be tested through proceedings.

Case Title: Dr. Mandavi v. Anish Khan

Date of Order: June 23, 2026

Bench: Justice Himanshu Joshi