Patna High Court
Dr. Govind Mohan Jee vs The State Of Bihar on 21 July, 2026
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4096 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2557 Year-2012 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Dr. Govind Mohan Jee, son of Late Nageshwar Das, M.S. (Ortho), Lecturer,
P.M.C.H. Patna, Jagdamba Nurshing Home, Boring Canal Road, Near Indira
Bhawan, P.S.-Shri Krishna Puri, District-Patna ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Satish Yadav, son of Late Bindeshwar Yadav, Resident of Village-Chak
Mandhol, P.S.-Tajpur, District-Samastipur
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Md. Fahimuddin, APP
For the complainant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 21-07-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State duly assisted by learned counsel
appearing for the informant.
2. The present application has been preferred by
the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 12.12.2017
passed by the learned Sub-Judge-II-cum-Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No.2557 of
2012, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate has
dismissed the petition dated 03.03.2017 filed on behalf of
the petitioner under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') with a prayer to allow the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4096 of 2019 dt.21-07-2026
2/17
petition and discharge the petitioner/accused from the
present case.
3. The case of prosecution, in brief, is based on
written complaint of one Satish Yadav, son of Late
Bindeshwar Yadav, who filed Complaint Case No.2557 of
2012 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna
on 06.09.2012 alleging therein inter alia that on
05.08.2012
, his father namely, Bindeshwar Yadav fell down
near hand pump and due to that, his hand was fractured and
for the treatment, the father of informant consulted with the
petitioner at Village-Sari, District-Samastipur and petitioner
advised him to admit his father at Jagdamba Nursing Home,
Boring Canal Road, Patna for conducting operation.
Thereafter, the informant admitted his father at Patna on the
advice of petitioner, where the petitioner took Rs.18,000/- in
place of Rs.10,000/- forcibly from the complainant for which
some altercation took place. It was further alleged that his
father was forcibly operated and excessive anesthesia and
poisoned injection were given to his father and due to that
reason, during operation, his father became unconscious
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4096 of 2019 dt.21-07-2026
3/17
and, thereafter, he brought his father at P.M.C.H. Patna and
admitted there on 08.08.2012, where the condition of his
father was deteriorated. Thereafter, the informant informed
the police regarding the occurrence but, the police has not
taken any action and his father was died. Thereafter, the
postmortem examination was conducted at P.M.C.H. Patna.
4. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, after
inquiry and examination of complainant on oath and also the
witnesses, learned Jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance
against petitioner for offences punishable under Sections
420, 304-A and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (in short
‘IPC‘) against the petitioner.
5. Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has
been falsely implicated in this case and no case is made out
against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the father
of the complainant namely, Bindeshwar yadav was admitted
at Jagdamba Nursing Home, Boring Canal Road, Patna on
07.08.2012 and on 08.08.2012, complainant asked staff of
the nursing home and the petitioner to discharge the patient
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4096 of 2019 dt.21-07-2026
4/17
and accordingly, the patient was discharged on 08.08.2012.
It is further argued that father of complainant was operated
only after conducting essential tests at the initial stage.
6. Arguing further, Mr. Singh submitted that on
08.08.2012, after discharging from Jagdamba Nursing
Home, the father of complainant was admitted to Arvind
Hospital, Patna and from there, he was taken to P.M.C.H.,
Emergency Ward at 6:41 P.M., where he died after two days
i.e. on 10th August, 2012, which is apparent from Annexure-
6 of the present quashing petition. It is pointed out that
considering the health conditions of father of the informant,
his operation was stopped in Jagdamba Nursing Home, which
is apparent from Annexure-5. It is submitted that there is all
chance that some negligence may be done at Arvind Hospital
due to which, the complication was developed, as patient
was discharged from Jagdamba Nursing Home in good
condition.
7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel
has relied upon the legal reports of Hon’ble Supreme Court
as available through State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4096 of 2019 dt.21-07-2026
5/17
reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Jacob Mathew vs.
State of Punjab and Another reported in (2005) 6 SCC
1; Rajiv Thapar and Others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor
reported in (2013) 3 SCC 330; Dipakbhai
Jageishchandra Patel vs. the State of Gujarat reported
in (2019) 16 SCC 547; and Kanchan Kumar vs. State
of Bihar reported in (2022) 9 SCC 577.
8. Arguing further, it is submitted that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in a landmark judgment in Jacob Mathew
(supra) has held in paragraph 52 of the judgment as
follows:-
“52. Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section
304-A prosecuting Medical Professionals
guidelines a private complaint may not be
entertained unless the complainant had produced
prima facie evidence before the Court in the form
of a credible opinion given by another competent
doctor to support the charge of restness or
negligence on the part of the accused doctor”.
9. The same view was affirmed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in other judgment also, where it has been
held that Courts have to be extremely careful to ensure that
unnecessarily professionals are not harassed as they will not
be able to carry out their professional duties without fear,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4096 of 2019 dt.21-07-2026
6/17
medical professional are entitled to get protection so long as
they perform their duties with reasonable skill and
competence, which is in the interest of the patient.
10. In support of his submission, learned counsel
has relied upon para 81 of the legal report of Hon’ble
Supreme Court as available through Kusum Sharma vs.
Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre reported in
(2010) 3 SCC 480, which are as under:-
“81. In Laxman Balkrishna Joshi (Dr.)
[AIR 1969 SC 128], the Court observed that :
“11. … The practitioner must bring to his task
a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and
must exercise a reasonable degree of care.
Neither the very highest nor a very low degree
of care and competence judged in the light of
the particular circumstances of each case is
what the law requires. The doctor no doubt has
a discretion in choosing treatment which he
proposes to give to the patient and such
discretion is relatively ampler in cases of
emergency.”
In that case, the death of patient was
caused due to shock resulting from reduction of
the fracture attempted by doctor without taking
the elementary caution of giving anaesthetic to the
patient. The doctor was held guilty of negligence
and liable for damages in civil law. We hasten to
add that criminal negligence or liability under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4096 of 2019 dt.21-07-2026
7/17
criminal law was not an issue before the Court–as
it did not arise and hence was not considered.”
11. In view of aforesaid legal positions, it is
submitted that the petitioner is a highly qualified doctor, who
did his MBBS from R.M.C.H., Ranchi and M.S. (Orthopedics)
from P.M.C.H. in 1997 and was appointed as a Lecturer in
the Department of Orthopedics, P.M.C.H., Patna on
24.09.2001 by the examination conducted by Bihar Public
Service Commission.
12. It is submitted that from impugned order of
cognizance, it can gathered safely that the learned trial court
was well aware about the legal positions, as settled
aforesaid, by the Hon’ble Apex Court but, same is not
required to be looked into at the stage of framing of charge,
supplying the reasons that it is not easy for any private
person to make agree to any doctor to depose against
doctor.
13. It is submitted that this observation of the
learned trial court while taking cognizance against petitioner
is completely contrary to the law settled by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, where it is clearly settled that no private
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4096 of 2019 dt.21-07-2026
8/17
complaint would be entertained against doctor until and
unless the complainant had produced prima face evidence
before the court in the form of credible opinion given by
another competent doctor to support the charge of restness
or negligence on the part of the accused-doctor and on this
ground alone, the present petition is fit to be quashed/set
aside, as same has been lodged only to pressurize the
petitioner out of ulterior and oblique motive, due to which,
the petitioner being a professional, having no fault facing the
trauma of criminal prosecution since last 14 years, being a
medical practitioner.
14. On the other hand, Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav,
learned counsel for the complainant/O.P. No.2 submitted
that the case of petitioner was tested legally after
considering the material available on records, whereafter, the
learned trial court found that the allegation is not groundless
and, therefore, rightly ordered to put petitioner on trial for
offence as alleged to be committed for offences punishable
under Section 304-A of the IPC.
15. While concluding argument, Mr. Ashok Kumar
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4096 of 2019 dt.21-07-2026
9/17
Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that
the issues as raised by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner can be looked into only during the trial.
16. In support of his submission, learned counsel
for the complainant has relied upon the legal report of
Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Central
Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Singh, etc. as
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379.
17. It would be apposite to reproduce para-102 of
the legal of report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available
through Bhajan Lal case (supra), which is as under:-
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation
of the various relevant provisions of the Code
under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law
enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions
relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted
and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein
such power could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4096 of 2019 dt.21-07-2026
10/17and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the
first information report or the complaint,
even if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first
information report and other materials, if
any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose
a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the
accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do
not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable offence,
no investigation is permitted by a police
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4096 of 2019 dt.21-07-2026
11/17officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the
FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge”.
18. It would further be apposite to re-produce
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4096 of 2019 dt.21-07-2026
12/17
para-38 and 48 of the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme
Court as available through Jacob Mathew case (supra),
which is as under:-
“38. The question of degree has always
been considered as relevant to a distinction between
negligence in civil law and negligence in criminal law.
In Kurban Hussein Mohammedali Rangwalla v. State
of Maharashtra [(1965) 2 SCR 622] while dealing
with Section 304-A IPC, the following statement of
law by Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Emperor v. Omkar
Rampratap [(1902) 4 Bom LR 679] was cited with
approval:
“To impose criminal liability under
Section 304-A, Penal Code, 1860, it is
necessary that the death should have
been the direct result of a rash and
negligent act of the accused, and that act
must be the proximate and efficient cause
without the intervention of another’s
negligence. It must be the causa causans;
it is not enough that it may have been the
causa sine qua non.”
48. We sum up our conclusions as under:
(1) xxx xxx xxx
(2) xxx xxx xxx
(3) xxx xxx xxx
(4) xxx xxx xxx
(5) xxx xxx xxx
(6) The word “gross” has not been used in
Section 304-A IPC, yet it is settled that in criminal
law negligence or recklessness, to be so held, must
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4096 of 2019 dt.21-07-2026
13/17
be of such a high degree as to be “gross”. The
expression “rash or negligent act” as occurring in
Section 304-A IPC has to be read as qualified by the
word “grossly”
(7) To prosecute a medical professional
for negligence under criminal law it must be shown
that the accused did something or failed to do
something which in the given facts and
circumstances no medical professional in his ordinary
senses and prudence would have done or failed to
do. The hazard taken by the accused doctor should
be of such a nature that the injury which resulted
was most likely imminent.”
19. It would be relevant to reproduce para-26 and
27 of the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available
through Rajiv Thapar case (supra), which are as under:-
“26. This Court had an occasion to
examine the matter in State of Orissa v. Debendra
Nath Padhi [(2005) 1 SCC 568] (incidentally the said
judgment was heavily relied upon by the learned
counsel for the respondent complainant), wherein it
was held thus:
“29. Regarding the argument of the accused having to
face the trial despite being in a position to produce
material of unimpeachable character of sterling
quality, the width of the powers of the High Court
under Section 482 of the Code and Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is unlimited whereunder in the
interests of justice the High Court can make such
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4096 of 2019 dt.21-07-2026
14/17orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends
of justice within the parameters laid down in Bhajan
Lal case [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335].”
27. Recently, this Court again had an
occasion to examine the ambit and scope of Section
482 CrPC in Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar
[(2008) 14 SCC 1] wherein in the main order it was
observed that the width of the powers of the High
Court under Section 482 CrPC and under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, was unlimited. In the
said judgment, this Court held that the High Court
could make such orders as may be necessary to
prevent abuse of the process of any court, or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In a
concurring separate order passed in the same case,
it was additionally observed that under Section 482
CrPC, the High Court was free to consider even
material that may be produced on behalf of the
accused, to arrive at a decision whether the charge
as framed could be maintained. The aforesaid
parameters shall be kept in mind while we examine
whether the High Court ought to have exercised its
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC in the
facts and circumstances of this case.”
20. It would also be relevant to reproduce para-16
of the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available
through Dipakbhai Jageishchandra Patel case (supra),
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4096 of 2019 dt.21-07-2026
15/17
which is as under:-
“16. In Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar
Samal [Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal,
(1979) 3 SCC 4], after survey of case law, this is
what the Court has laid down:
“10. Thus, on a consideration of the
authorities mentioned above, the following
principles emerge:
(1) That the Judge while considering the
question of framing the charges under
Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted
power to sift and weigh the evidence for the
limited purpose of finding out whether or not
a prima facie case against the accused has
been made out.
(2) Where the materials placed before the
Court disclose grave suspicion against the
accused which has not been properly
explained the Court will be fully justified in
framing a charge and proceeding with the
trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case
would naturally depend upon the facts of
each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule
of universal application. By and large
however if two views are equally possible and
the Judge is satisfied that the evidence
produced before him while giving rise to
some suspicion but not grave suspicion
against the accused, he will be fully within his
right to discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under
Section 227 of the Code the Judge which
under the present Code is a senior and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4096 of 2019 dt.21-07-2026
16/17experienced court cannot act merely as a
post office or a mouthpiece of the
prosecution, but has to consider the broad
probabilities of the case, the total effect of
the evidence and the documents produced
before the Court, any basic infirmities
appearing in the case and so on. This
however does not mean that the Judge
should make a roving enquiry into the pros
and cons of the matter and weigh the
evidence as if he was conducting a trial.”
21. The jurisprudence governing medical
negligence consistently recognizes the distinction between
civil liability and criminal culpability, lest the fear of criminal
prosecution erodes independent medical decision making and
adversely impacts public health care. The Constitutional
guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
encompasses not only the patient’s right to life but also the
medical professionals right to practice the profession with
dignity, fairness and protection against arbitrary criminal
prosecution. In the absence of prima facie material disclosing
gross negligence supported by competent medical opinion
permitted the prosecution to continue would result in
manifest injustice and defeat the very object of criminal
justice system.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4096 of 2019 dt.21-07-2026
17/17
22. Accordingly, in exercise of the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court to secure the ends of justice and
prevent the abuse of process of law the impugned criminal
proceeding, insofar as it relates to the petitioner, deserve to
be quashed in view of Jacob Mathew case (supra).
23. Hence, the impugned order dated 12.12.2017
with all its consequential proceedings qua petitioner as
passed by learned Sub-Judge-II-cum-Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No.2557 of
2012, is hereby set aside/quashed.
24. Accordingly, the present petition stands
allowed.
25. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the
learned trial court forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 23-07-2026 Transmission Date 23-07-2026
