Rohit Lalit v. Sourabh Chabbra, 2026

The complaint was filed by the brother of a 22-year-old woman, who died on 21 January 2023 during treatment at the petitioner's hospital.

According to the complainant, the patient developed complications after being administered an injection at the hospital.

Although she was shifted to another hospital for further treatment, she was declared dead.

Alleging gross medical negligence, the complainant sought prosecution of the doctor under various provisions of the IPC, including Section 304A IPC.

After recording preliminary evidence, the Trial Court summoned the petitioner to face trial under Section 304A IPC.

The petitioner contended that a District Medical Negligence Board, comprising six doctors, had already examined the case and categorically concluded that no negligence was attributable to him.

It was further pointed out that the Trial Court itself had directed that a second expert opinion be obtained from PGI Chandigarh.

However, without waiting for the expert report from PGI Chandigarh, the Trial Court proceeded to issue the summoning order.

Aggrieved by this course of action, the petitioner approached the High Court under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the complaint and the summoning order.

The High Court held that the Trial Court acted perversely by issuing the summoning order without awaiting the expert opinion which it had itself directed to be obtained from PGI Chandigarh.

The Court observed that once a judicial order requiring an expert medical opinion had been passed, the Trial Court was bound either to await the report or formally recall its earlier order by recording appropriate reasons.

It noted that the District Medical Negligence Board, consisting of six doctors, had already opined that no negligence could be attributed to the petitioner.

The Court emphasized that expert medical opinion plays a crucial role in determining criminal liability in cases alleging medical negligence.

Relying upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated that criminal prosecution of medical professionals requires credible medical evidence.

It held that the Trial Court's decision to ignore its own direction and proceed with summoning the petitioner was contrary to settled norms of judicial discipline.

The Court observed that if practical difficulties arose in obtaining the report from PGI Chandigarh, the Trial Court ought to have recalled or modified its earlier order by assigning reasons.

Since no such course was adopted, the impugned summoning order was held to be unsustainable in law.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the summoning order.

The Trial Court was directed to first obtain the expert opinion from PGI Chandigarh, consider it together with the existing material on record, and thereafter pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

The judgment reinforces the principle that criminal prosecution for medical negligence requires a cautious and evidence-based approach, particularly where professional medical judgment is involved.

By relying upon Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, the Court reaffirmed that expert medical opinion is an indispensable safeguard against unwarranted criminal prosecution of doctors.

The decision underscores that a court must remain consistent with its own judicial directions, and cannot disregard them without formally modifying or recalling the earlier order.

The ruling strengthens the doctrine of judicial discipline, emphasizing that procedural fairness applies equally to courts as well as litigants.

The Court appropriately recognized the evidentiary significance of the District Medical Negligence Board's report while directing that the proposed PGI Chandigarh opinion should also be considered before deciding whether criminal proceedings should continue.

The judgment discourages premature summoning of medical professionals in the absence of adequate expert evidence, thereby protecting them from unnecessary criminal trials.

The decision also balances the rights of the complainant by directing a fresh consideration of the matter after obtaining the required expert opinion instead of terminating the complaint altogether.

The ruling is likely to guide subordinate courts in ensuring strict adherence to procedural safeguards before issuing process in medical negligence cases.

A notable strength of the judgment is its emphasis on reasoned judicial decision-making, ensuring that courts adhere to their own procedural orders unless validly recalled.

The judgment strengthens confidence in criminal adjudication by reaffirming that expert evidence, judicial consistency, and procedural fairness are essential prerequisites before exposing a medical professional to criminal prosecution.