Holding

The allegations, even if accepted as true, do not disclose any cognizable criminal offence, warranting the quashing of the complaint under Section 482 CrPC.

Summary

The complainant alleged that Narayana Multispecialty Hospital overcharged for an HRCT test that was not performed, delayed the supply of medical records, and that hospital staff threatened him when he raised the issue. He filed a criminal complaint invoking Sections 405, 420 and 120B of the IPC and Section 34 of the West Bengal Clinical Establishments Act against the corporate entity running the hospital, the hospital itself, its chairman and staff. The trial magistrate issued process, but the appellants sought quashing of the complaint under Section 482 of the CrPC, a request that the High Court rejected and remanded for reconsideration of complicity. The Supreme Court examined whether the allegations, even if taken at face value, disclosed any cognizable offence under the statutes invoked. It held that the facts amounted only to a billing dispute and a grievance over record‑supply, which are civil or regulatory matters, not criminal offences, and that the elements of criminal breach of trust, cheating and conspiracy were not satisfied. Consequently, the Court exercised its inherent power under Section 482 to quash the criminal complaint and set aside the High Court’s order.

Issues considered

Whether the allegations in the complaint prima facie disclose the commission of any offence under Sections 405, 420, 120B of the IPC and Section 34 of the West Bengal Clinical Establishments Act.
Whether the High Court erred in remanding the matter for reconsideration of complicity of the corporate entity and its chairman.
Whether the Supreme Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal complaint.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 200, s. 482
Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 405, s. 420, s. 504
West Bengal Clinical Establishments (Registration, Regulation & Transparency) Act, 2017s. 29, s. 34, s. 35, s. 36

Headnote

584 : 2026 INSC 481 Narayana Health & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No(s). 2461-2462 of 2026) 12 May 2026 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court both of whom are in a separate territorial jurisdiction than the Magistrate; and whether the allegations contained in the complaint prima facie disclose commission of a criminal offence. Headnotes† West Bengal Clinical Establishment (Registration, Regulation & Transparency)

Subjects

Summoning orderRemanding the matter for reconsiderationCorporate entity running the hospitalChairmanSeparate territorial jurisdictionCommission of criminal offenceMedical treatmentDiscrepancies in the billsMedical records for insurance reimbursementRevised billDiagnostic testImproper conduct of hospital personnelQuashing of the complaint and the summoning orderComplicity of accused personsCriminal breach of trustCheatingCriminal conspiracy

Judgment

[2026] 5 S.C.R. 584 : 2026 INSC 481

Narayana Health & Ors.
v.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 2461-2462 of 2026)
12 May 2026
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by
the High Court setting aside the summoning order passed by the
Magistrate and remanding the matter, regarding complicity of first
appellant-corporate entity running the co-accused hospital, and the
third appellant-Chairman, both of whom are in a separate territorial
jurisdiction than the Magistrate; and whether the allegations
contained in the complaint prima facie disclose commission of a
criminal offence.

Headnotes†
West Bengal Clinical Establishment (Registration, Regulation &
Transparency) Act, 2017 – s.34 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.405,
420 and 120B – Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct,
Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 – Successful medical
treatment of complainant’s mother and on discharge hospital
issued a bill – Complainant alleged discrepancies in the bills
and sought medical records for insurance reimbursement –
Hospital issued revised bill reflecting adjustment in the
charges, and communicated to the complainant to collect
the refund amount – However, complaint case filed alleging
commission of offences u/ss.405, 420 and 120B, IPC along
with s.34 of the 2017 Act that the hospital had intentionally
included charges for a diagnostic test which had not been
performed, that the relevant medical documents were not
supplied promptly; and that certain hospital personnel
behaved improperly and issued threats when the complainant
questioned the billing and sought clarification regarding the
treatment records, against first appellant-company running
the hospital; second appellant-hospital; third appellant-
Chairman of the company; fourth appellant-representative
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 585

Narayana Health & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

attached with the hospital; and third respondent-former
employee of the hospital – Issuance of process by the
Magistrate – Appellants sought quashing of the complaint and
the summoning order u/s.482 CrPC – High Court remand the
matter to the Magistrate to reconsider complicity of accused
persons – Correctness:
Held: Allegations made in the complaint, even if assumed to be
true in their entirety and accepted at face value, fail to disclose
the commission of any offence under the Sections invoked against
the accused persons – Complaint also alleged grievance about
non-supply or delay in supply of medical records – Allegation
falls short of a criminal offence and could at the most give rise
to some kind of a claim in civil law or a statutory requirement
under the 2017 Act or 2002 Regulations – However, the
complaint only refers to the commission of offence u/s.34, which
provides for criminal liability for declared offences and prescribes
punishments – Legislative scheme clearly establishes that disputes
concerning billing practices, supply of medical records, or service-
related grievances are primarily intended to be addressed as
deficiencies for which compensation is payable, if found to be
true – Without even indicating as to how and in which manner
the criminal offence has been committed, not permissible for the
complainant to proceed with prosecution by just mentioning s.34
in the complaint – Complainant may have certain service-related
grievances and these could be addressed u/s.29 of the 2017
Act – Thus, no criminal offence even u/s.34 of the 2017 Act made
out – Fit case for exercising jurisdiction u/s.482 CrPC to quash the
criminal complaint and the High Court failed to exercise such a
power – Judgment and order passed by the High Court set aside
and the complaint case quashed. [Paras 11-20].

Case Law Cited
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1990] Supp. 3 SCR 259 : (1992)
Supp. 1 SCC 335; Ramesh Chandra Gupta v. State of UP (2022)
18 SCC 706; Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand, 2025
SCC OnLine SC 2058; Sadhupati Nageswara Rao v. State of
Andhra Pradesh [2012] 6 SCR 1143 : (2012) 8 SCC 547; Prof.
RK Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam [2019] 2 SCR 185 : (2019)
16 SCC 739; Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat [2011] 8 SCR
586 [2026] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

815 : (2011) 7 SCC 59; Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. [2003] 1 SCR
622 : (2003) 3 SCC 11; Alpic Finance Ltd. v. P. Sadasivan [2001]
1 SCR 1059 : (2001) 3 SCC 513; State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot
Sandhu [2005] Supp. 2 SCR 79 : (2005) 11 SCC 600 – referred to.
Shashank Garg v. State and Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine Del
2455 – referred to.

List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; West Bengal Clinical Establishments
(Registration, Regulation and Transparency) Act, 2017; Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Medical Council (Professional
Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002.

List of Keywords
Summoning order; Remanding the matter for reconsideration;
Corporate entity running the hospital; Chairman; Separate territorial
jurisdiction; Commission of criminal offence; Medical treatment;
Discharge from the hospital; Discrepancies in the bills; Medical
records for insurance reimbursement; Revised bill; Diagnostic
test; Hospital personnel behaved improperly and issued threats;
Issuance of process; Quashing of the complaint and the summoning
order; Complicity of accused persons; Criminal breach of trust;
Cheating; Criminal conspiracy.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
2461-2462 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.05.2023 of the High Court
at Calcutta in CRR No. 967 of 2021 and CRAN No. 1 of 2021.

Appearances for Parties
Abhinay, Gagan Gupta, Amici Curiae.
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv., Shivendra Singh, Bikram Dwivedi,
Ms. Prakriti Rastogi, Ms. Aryama Singh Rajput.
Adv. for the Respondent(s):
Kunal Mimani.
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 587

Narayana Health & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals arise from the judgement and order of the
High Court1, setting aside the summoning order passed by the
Judicial Magistrate2 and remanding the matter for reconsideration,
especially regarding complicity of first appellant, a corporate entity
running the co-accused hospital, and the third appellant, being the
Chairman, both of whom are in a separate territorial jurisdiction
than the Magistrate. The main issue is whether the allegations
contained in the complaint prima facie disclose commission of a
criminal offence or not.
3. The facts relevant for our consideration are as follows. The present
proceedings arise out of a complaint filed by the second respondent
(“complainant”) in relation to the medical treatment of his mother,
Smt. Bina Sen, who was admitted to Narayana Multispecialty
Hospital, Barasat, Kolkata, on 13.02.2021 for treatment of her
fractured right femur bone. She underwent a successful surgery
on 15.02.2021 and remained admitted until her discharge on
19.02.2021. Upon discharge, the hospital issued a bill for the
medical services rendered. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.
1,71,130/- towards the treatment expenses, out of a total billed
amount of approximately Rs. 1,94,307.84/- after certain discounts
were applied by the hospital. After the discharge of the patient, the
complainant approached the hospital authorities on 20.02.2021,
raising concerns regarding certain discrepancies in the billing and
seeking copies of medical records and documents relating to the
treatment of his mother. The complainant was informed about the
hospital’s grievance redressal mechanism and was advised to follow
the established procedure for obtaining records and addressing
billing concerns. Subsequently, the complainant requested copies
of medical documents and treatment records required for purposes
of insurance reimbursement.

1 Vide judgement and order dated 16.05.2023 in C.R.R. No. 967 of 2021 with CRAN No. 1 of 2021.
2 Vide order dated 11.03.2021 in Complaint Case No. C-533 of 2021.
588 [2026] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

4. Thereafter, on 23.02.2021, the hospital issued a revised bill reflecting
an adjustment in the charges, particularly in relation to an HRCT
test amounting to Rs. 2,500/-, which had earlier been included in
the bill. According to the hospital, though the said diagnostic test
was proposed, it was in fact not conducted because the subsequent
condition of the patient did not warrant it. Consequently, the revised
bill reflected that the amount of Rs. 2,500/- was liable to be refunded
to the complainant. The hospital communicated the same to the
complainant through email on 24.02.2021, requesting him to collect
the refund amount from the hospital counter or to provide bank details
to facilitate the transfer of the amount. A reminder communication
was also sent thereafter, requesting the complainant to collect the
refund.
5. The complainant instituted Complaint Case No. C-533 of 2021 before
the Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Barasat, alleging that the hospital
had intentionally included charges for a diagnostic test which had
not been performed, and that relevant medical documents were
not supplied promptly. The complaint further alleged that certain
hospital personnel (arrayed in this appeal as the fourth appellant
and the third respondent) behaved improperly and issued threats
when the complainant questioned the billing and sought clarification
regarding the treatment records. On the basis of these allegations,
offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (“IPC”), along with Section 34 of the West Bengal
Clinical Establishments (Registration, Regulation and Transparency)
Act, 2017 (“2017 Act”), were invoked against the first appellant, the
company running the hospital; the second appellant, the hospital;
the third appellant, being the Chairman of the company; the fourth
appellant, being the representative attached with the hospital; and
the third respondent, being the former employee of the hospital.
6. The Magistrate examined the complainant and preliminary statements
of supporting witnesses under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 (“CrPC”) and, by order dated 11.03.2021, issued process
against the accused persons. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed
a petition for quashing the complaint and the summoning order under
Section 482, CrPC.
7. The High Court, vide impugned judgement dated 16.05.2023,
instead of considering the submissions of the appellants that no
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 589

Narayana Health & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

offence is made out and that the allegations, even if true, relate to
a civil dispute, proceeded to remand the matter to the Magistrate to
reconsider complicity of accused persons living in separate territorial
jurisdictions. While setting aside the order of summons, the High Court
without a proper examination of the facts, particularly in the context
of the offences alleged, made a passing comment that offence has
been made out. The relevant portion of the impugned judgement is
reproduced below -
“I have considered the allegations made in the petition
of complaint as also the evidence under Section 200 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (initial deposition) of the
complainant Kollol Kumar Sen and his witness Uttam
Kumar Basu. Both the witnesses apart from the issue
relating to inflated bill of Rs.2,500/- being charged for a
test which was not done also specifically alleged in respect
of accused persons Suvendu Prakash and Anup Bhaduri
who pushed the complainant into the office and threatened
him that they are least bothered of such crimes and if the
same is disclosed he may have to face concern relating
to safety of his life.
The aforesaid act of the two accused persons prima facie
do make out an offence under Section 504 of the Indian
Penal Code. At this stage, the concern of the Court is to
see whether the allegations in the complaint do make out
an offence.
On an assessment of the whole complaint, I am of the view
that offence has been made out, however, the complicity
of all the persons are to be assessed. It is an admitted
position that the petitioner nos. 1 and 3 are having their
address at a separate territorial jurisdiction, although
petitioner no. 1 is an artificial person but petitioner no.3
is a natural person, his complicity relating to the offence
is to be assessed on a different yardstick under Section
200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prior to issuance
of process.
Accordingly, the order dated 11.03.2021 issuing process
is set aside. Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court,
Barasat, North 24 Parganas would assess regarding the
590 [2026] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

complicity of the petitioner no.3 as also petitioner no.1
before issuing process.
The revisional application being CRR 967 of 2021 is partly
allowed.”
8. Aggrieved, the appellants have approached this Court and by our order
dated 28.08.2023, while issuing notice in the Special Leave Petition,
this Court also stayed further proceedings before the Magistrate.
9. We heard Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Senior Advocate for the appellants,
and as none appeared on behalf of the complainant, we requested
Mr. Gagan Gupta, Senior Advocate, to assist us as an amicus curiae.
10. The appellants had approached the High Court against issuance of
process by the Magistrate by invoking its inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the CrPC. The circumstances in which the High Court
can exercise its power and jurisdiction under Section 482 to quash
criminal proceedings is well articulated in a number of precedents,
commencing with the celebrated decision of this Court in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,3 the relevant excerpt of which is as follows -
“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.

3 (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335; Ramesh Chandra Gupta v. State of UP, (2022) 18 SCC 706; Arshad Neyaz
Khan v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2058; Shashank Garg v. State and Ors., 2025 SCC
OnLine Del 2455.
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 591

Narayana Health & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

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 officer
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.”
11. The complainant alleged commission of offences under Sections 405,
420 and 120B, IPC in his complaint. For criminal breach of trust under
Section 405, IPC, it is necessary that there must be entrustment of
property to the accused; such entrustment must create a fiduciary
obligation regarding the handling or use of that property; and the
accused must have dishonestly misappropriated or converted the
entrusted property.4 Applying these principles to the present case, the
allegations in the complaint indicate that the amount of Rs. 2,500/-
was paid by the complainant as part of the hospital bill towards
charges for an HRCT test, at the time of discharge of the patient.
The complaint does not contain any averment that the amount in
question was entrusted to the hospital to be held or utilised for a
fiduciary or trust-based purpose, nor does it refer to any legal or

4 Sadhupati Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 8 SCC 547; Prof. RK Vijayasarathy v.
Sudha Seetharam, (2019) 16 SCC 739.
592 [2026] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

contractual stipulation governing the manner in which such amount
was required to be dealt with or any other averment to show as
to how Section 405, IPC is made out. Furthermore, upon mistake
being pointed out, the hospital had offered to refund the amount
wrongly charged. Thus, in the absence of entrustment, dishonest
misappropriation, or violation of a fiduciary obligation, foundational
ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust as enshrined
in Section 405, IPC are not satisfied.
12. For the offence of cheating under Section 420, IPC there must be
deception on part of the accused from the very beginning; such
deception must lead to fraudulent or dishonest inducement; and the
accused must have had dishonest intention at the time the inducement
was made.5 The allegation in the complaint is merely that the bill issued
by the hospital reflected charge for a test that was not performed.
Once the issue of wrong charge was raised by the complainant,
the hospital communicated its decision to refund the amount. The
discrepancy in billing appears to be more of an inadvertence, than
a case of dishonest intention on part of the hospital. We are of the
opinion that the allegation of cheating is completely misplaced.
13. For the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B, IPC there
must be a prior agreement or meeting of minds for commission of
an illegal act or a lawful act by illegal means.6 Moreover, where the
foundational offences are not disclosed, a charge of conspiracy
premised upon those offences ordinarily cannot stand independently.7
Since the allegations regarding offences of criminal breach of trust
and cheating are virtually non-existent, the incidental allegation of
criminal conspiracy is unsustainable. Furthermore, the complaint
named not just the hospital and its staff but also the corporate
entity running it and its Chairman. There is nothing in the complaint
indicating a prior agreement, concerted plan, or meeting of minds
among the accused persons to commit an unlawful act.
14. The complainant had also alleged improper conduct by the fourth
appellant and the third respondent, employees of the hospital,
as has been noticed in the impugned judgement as well. The

5 Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59; Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P., (2003) 3 SCC 11;
Alpic Finance Ltd. v. P. Sadasivan, (2001) 3 SCC 513.
6 State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600.
7 R.K. Vijayasarathy (supra).
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 593

Narayana Health & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

allegations in the complaint relate to the alleged statements made
by them discouraging the complainant from pursuing the matter any
further. There is nothing more to this averment and it is important to
note that neither the complaint nor the summoning order refers to
commission of an offence under Section 503, IPC. The High Court
while remanding the matter, on its own makes an observation that,
“the aforesaid act of the two accused persons prima facie do make
out an offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code” and that
“offence has been made out”. We are of the opinion that there was
no occasion for the High Court to construe the general averments
and elevate them to the commission of an offence under Section
504 and then observe that offence has been made out.
15. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the
allegations made in the complaint, even if assumed to be true in their
entirety and accepted at face value, fail to disclose the commission of
any offence under the Sections invoked against the accused persons.
16. The complaint also alleged grievance about non-supply or delay in
supply of medical records. We are of the opinion that the allegation
falls short of a criminal offence and could at the most give rise to
some kind of a claim in civil law or a statutory requirement under
West Bengal Clinical Establishment (Registration, Regulation &
Transparency) Act, 2017 or the Indian Medical Council (Professional
Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002. However, the
complaint only refers to the commission of offence under Section 34
of the West Bengal Clinical Establishment (Registration, Regulation &
Transparency) Act, 2017.
17. The above referred 2017 Act is intended to regulate the functioning
of clinical establishments within the State, ensure transparency
in medical services, standardise treatment protocols, and provide
mechanisms for grievance redressal in matters relating to patient
care, billing practices and service standards. Duties of clinical
establishments such as the appellant hospital is declared in Section
7(3) of the 2017 Act, which is as follows:
“7. Conditions for registration and license:
….
(3) Every license granted under sub-section (1) shall be
subject to the following terms and conditions:—
594 [2026] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(c) that the clinical establishment shall not resort to any
unethical or unfair trade practices including unfair pricing
for different services;
(e) that such information is to be displayed and in such
manner as may be prescribed;
(g) that such medical and other reports, records and
documents shall be made available to the licensing
authority or the service recipient or his representative on
demand, as may be prescribed;
(l) that every clinical establishment shall maintain a Public
Grievance Cell for lodging of any complaint regarding
treatment, improper billing, deficit in service, attending
staffs’ behaviour etc. and for redressal thereof;
(m) that every clinical establishment shall set up a proper
Help Desk to maintain regular and proper communication
with the service recipients or their representatives regarding
treatment, recipient’s condition, regular billing etc. and for
their proper counseling;
(n) that every clinical establishment shall immediately after
coming into force of this Act, implement e-Prescription,
maintain Electronic Medical Records and provide a set
of all medical records and treatment details along with
the discharge summary at the time of discharge of the
service recipient;
(o) that every clinical establishment shall strictly follow the
fixed rates and charges including the Package Rates for
investigation, bed charges, operation theatre procedures,
Intensive Care, ventilation, implants, consultation and
similar tests and procedures, and any additional treatment
or procedure shall not attract additional charges over and
above such fixed rates and charges including the Package
Rates;
(p) that every clinical establishment shall provide proper
estimates for treatments not covered in fixed rates and
charges including the Package Rates, to the service
recipients or representative of service recipients during
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 595

Narayana Health & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

initiation or due course of treatment, and final bills shall
not exceed estimates by a certain percentage, as may be
prescribed by the Government;
…”
18. The 2017 Act provides remedies against violations and excesses by
clinical establishments by establishing an adjudicatory mechanism.
Section 35 provides for the appointment of an Adjudicating Authority
to address grievances concerning patient care services, billing
irregularities, non-supply of records, and service deficiencies. Under
Section 36, the West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory
Commission is established to supervise, adjudicate, and compensate
the consumers/patients.
19. While Section 29 provides for imposition of major and minor penalties
for deficiencies8, Section 34 provides for criminal liability for declared
offences and prescribes punishments.9 In other words, the legislative
scheme clearly establishes that disputes concerning billing practices,
supply of medical records, or service-related grievances are primarily
intended to be addressed as deficiencies for which compensation is
payable, if found to be true. Without even indicating as to how and
in which manner the criminal offence has been committed, it is not
permissible for the complainant to proceed with prosecution by just
mentioning Section 34 in the complaint. We do not deny the fact
that that complainant may have certain service-related grievances

8 “29. Minor and major deficiencies:
(1) Whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder resulting in such minor
deficiencies, that do not pose any imminent danger to the health and safety of any patient or public and
can be rectified within a reasonable time, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to fifty thousand
rupees.
(2) Whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder resulting in such major
deficiencies, that pose an imminent danger to the health and safety of any member of the public or
patient and which cannot be rectified within a reasonable time, shall be liable to a penalty which may
extend to ten lakh rupees.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this section “minor deficiencies and major deficiencies” shall have such
meaning as may be prescribed.”
9 “34. Offences and punishments:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if any person—
(a) violates the conditions of registration and license under this Act, he shall be liable for imprisonment
which may extend to three years; or
(b) causes death or injury of patient or service recipients due to negligence, shall be liable to punishment
as provided in the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
(2) The prosecution, trial etc. for the purpose of sub-section (1) shall be as per the provision contained
under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.”
596 [2026] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

and these could be addressed under Section 29 of the 2017 Act.
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that no criminal offence
even under Section 34 of the 2017 Act is made out.
20. Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the opinion that
this is a fit case for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC
to quash the criminal complaint and we are equally of the opinion
that the High Court has failed to exercise such a power. In this view
of the matter, we allow these appeals and set aside the judgement
and order passed by the High Court in C.R.R. No. 967 of 2021 with
CRAN No. 1 of 2021, dated 16.05.2023 and quash the Complaint
Case No. C-533 of 2021.
21. Quashing of the above referred criminal complaint will have no
bearing on the civil or statutory remedies that the complainant may
exercise in accordance with law.
22. We place on record the assistance rendered by Mr. Gagan Gupta,
learned Senior Advocate; along with Mr. Abhinay Sharma, Advocate
on Record; Ms. Kirti Vyas, Advocate; and Mr. Kartik Rajpurohit,
Advocate.

Result of the case: Appeals allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain