The Calcutta High Court refused to quash a criminal case against a nursing home owner accused of employing an unregistered doctor, leading to the death of a COVID-19 patient. Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed that the investigation had established sufficient grounds under Sections 304A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to proceed with the case.
Background of the Case: Allegations of Negligence and Unregistered Practice
The case arose after the death of Moly Saha Halder in May 2021. The victim was admitted to M.F.C. Women and Child Care Nursing Home for COVID-19 treatment but succumbed despite not having severe complications. It was later revealed through a newspaper report that Sudipto Sardar, the doctor treating her, was unregistered. The victim’s family alleged that the nursing home owner knowingly allowed Sardar to practice, resulting in the patient’s death.
Petitioner’s Defense and Opposite Party’s Claims
The petitioner contended that:
- Sardar was neither employed nor officially affiliated with the nursing home.
- There was insufficient proximity between the alleged negligence and the cause of death to attract charges under Section 304A IPC.
Conversely, the opposite party argued that the nursing home owner’s actions constituted a clear offense, as she knowingly permitted an unqualified individual to treat patients and insisted on his expertise.
Court’s Observations: Evidence of Intent and Negligence
The Court noted:
- Witness statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC suggested that the petitioner knowingly facilitated Sardar’s fraudulent practice.
- Specific allegations indicated that the petitioner encouraged patients to remain under Sardar’s care despite knowing his lack of qualifications.
- The registered doctor whose credentials were misused corroborated these allegations, implicating the nursing home owner in collusion with the fake doctor.
The Court highlighted that Section 304A IPC addresses negligent acts with a direct nexus to the cause of death. It found the evidence sufficient to establish prima facie charges against the petitioner.
Quashing Guidelines: Applicability of Section 483 CrPC
The Court outlined scenarios where proceedings could be quashed under Section 483 CrPC, including:
- Allegations lacking substance or essential ingredients of an offense.
- Complaints that are patently absurd or improbable.
- Misuse of judicial processes causing miscarriage of justice.
In this case, the Court found that the allegations disclosed a cognizable offense, thus rejecting the petitioner’s plea to quash proceedings.
The Court dismissed the petitioner’s plea to quash the case, emphasizing that she could contest the charges during the trial, including at the stage of framing charges. The earlier bail granted to the petitioner was deemed irrelevant since it was issued before the investigation concluded.