The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a government doctor accused of denying emergency treatment to a pregnant woman and allegedly demanding money before providing medical assistance. The woman later died while being shifted to another hospital.
Justice Himanshu Joshi held that the complaint disclosed a prima facie case and that disputed questions, including whether the doctor refused treatment, demanded money, or whether the alleged conduct had any connection with the woman’s death, required evidence and adjudication during trial.
The ruling came in Dr. Mandavi v. Anish Khan, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 2320 of 2016. The High Court decided the matter on June 23, 2026.
According to the complaint filed by Anish Khan, his wife, Jaibun Nisha, developed labour pain and was admitted to the Government Hospital at Tikamgarh.
The complaint alleged that another doctor advised an immediate operation and informed Dr. Mandavi, who was allegedly on emergency duty at the time. However, the complainant claimed that Dr. Mandavi did not come to the hospital.
The complaint further alleged that the doctor later asked for the patient to be shifted to a private nursing home and demanded money before providing treatment.
These claims remain allegations and have not been established through a completed trial.
Jaibun Nisha was later referred to the Medical College at Jhansi, according to the reported case details. She died while being taken there.
Her husband subsequently filed a private complaint. The Chief Judicial Magistrate in Tikamgarh took cognizance of the complaint, and the matter later reached the Second Additional Sessions Judge in revision.
After the revisional court upheld the decision, Dr. Mandavi approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to quash the proceedings.
Before the High Court, Dr. Mandavi argued that she had been falsely implicated. She contended that the allegations concerned acts connected with her official duties as a government medical officer.
The doctor also argued that prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was required before a court could take cognizance of the case against her.
Section 197 CrPC deals with prior sanction for prosecuting certain public servants for alleged offences connected with acts done while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duties.
The petitioner further pointed to the absence of a post-mortem report establishing the cause of death. She also argued that the complaint had been filed nearly five months after the alleged incident without a satisfactory explanation.
The High Court declined to decide the truth of the allegations at the quashing stage.
Justice Joshi observed that questions over whether Dr. Mandavi actually refused treatment, whether she demanded money, and whether the alleged conduct had any nexus with the woman’s death required evidence and adjudication during trial.
The Court held that a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings was not the appropriate stage to resolve such disputed factual issues.
It found that the allegations in the complaint, viewed at face value, disclosed a prima facie case that required examination on evidence.
The High Court also declined to quash the proceedings merely because no post-mortem report had been produced to establish the cause of death.
According to the reported ruling, alleged deficiencies in evidence could not justify ending the criminal proceedings when the complaint itself disclosed a prima facie case.
The Court indicated that evidentiary questions should be examined during trial rather than conclusively decided while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
The High Court also addressed the petitioner’s objections concerning the alleged delay of nearly five months in filing the complaint and the requirement of prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC.
It held that these issues should be examined by the trial court after evidence is led.
Finding no patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the subordinate courts’ orders, the High Court dismissed the petition. It allowed the criminal proceedings to continue and left the disputed allegations to be adjudicated during trial.
(Rh/ARC/MSM)