No Doctor While Treating a Patient Can Be Presumed to Intend Wrongful Loss to the Patient or Family: Telangana High Court Slams Criminal Prosecution in Absence of Prima Facie Evidence

“Mere Referral by a Doctor Cannot Constitute Criminal Offence” – In a significant judgment concerning criminal liability in medical negligence cases, the Telangana High Court discharged renowned oncologist Dr. Vijaya Anand Reddy from proceedings under Sections 418, 420, 304(A), and 120(B) of the IPC. Setting aside the order of the Magistrate refusing discharge, the Court held that there was no material to establish even a prima facie case against the petitioner, and that the prosecution amounted to an abuse of legal process.
“Mere referral does not constitute any offence,” observed Justice E.V. Venugopal, underscoring that the only act attributed to the petitioner was recommending further tests and referring the patient to another doctor. The complaint had been filed four years after the death of the patient, and the Court found that “there is no plausible explanation on the part of the prosecution for filing the complaint beyond the period of limitation.”
The case stemmed from a complaint filed in 2013, alleging that medical negligence on part of Dr. Reddy led to the death of the complainant’s mother in 2009. The police filed a charge sheet in 2014, and the case remained pending for over a decade. Dr. Reddy filed an application under Section 239 CrPC seeking discharge, which was rejected by the Magistrate. The High Court, however, found no legal or factual basis for continuation of the proceedings.
“It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is not competent to treat the patient,” the Court noted. “Nor is there any allegation that he charged or accepted money for such consultation, or that he played any role in the subsequent treatment which allegedly led to the death.”
Referring to the Supreme Court’s landmark rulings in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, the High Court reiterated that a doctor can only be held criminally liable if the act in question amounts to “gross negligence” or is “so reckless as to endanger life.” The Court stressed that no such material was presented in this case.
Quoting Jacob Mathew, the Court stated: “It is not the case of the complainant that the accused-appellant was not a doctor qualified to treat the patient… probably the hospital may be liable in civil law, but the accused cannot be proceeded against under Section 304A IPC.”
Justice Venugopal went on to address the applicability of Sections 418 and 420 IPC, noting that the essential ingredient—dishonest inducement with intent to cause wrongful loss—was entirely absent.
“No prudent man can imagine or presume that a doctor treating a patient would entertain an idea of causing wrongful loss… There is no whisper in the prosecution’s case to suggest any element of cheating,” the Court said, observing that even under a strict reading of Section 420 IPC, the allegations would fail.

Section 304-A IPC, which concerns causing death by rash or negligent act, was also found inapplicable.
“The entire record shows that the petitioner has only suggested some tests to be done… So Section 304-A of IPC also will not have any applicability to the facts of the case,” the Court ruled.
Further, the Court held that invocation of Section 120(B) (criminal conspiracy) was “completely misplaced” and unsupported by any facts.
On the issue of delay, the Court noted that while Section 473 CrPC allows for condonation of delay in the interest of justice, the prosecution neither offered a “plausible explanation” for filing the complaint four years after the death, nor did the trial court justify the delay while taking cognizance.
The complainant had already obtained a compensation order against Dr. Reddy from the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. But the High Court made it clear that this had no bearing on the criminal case.
“There is neither any statutory provision nor legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other,” the Court remarked, relying on the Constitution Bench ruling in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah.
In conclusion, the Court set aside the trial court’s order and allowed the revision petition: “For all the above reasons, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner… Accordingly, the criminal revision case is allowed. The petitioner is discharged from the offences punishable under Sections 418, 420, 304(A) and 120(B) of IPC.”

Date of Decsion: April 9, 2025