B. JAGDISH & ANR. versus STATE OF AP. & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 606 · Decided: 16-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

e 
) 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 606 
A 
B. JAGDISH & ANR. 
v. 
) 
STATE OF AP. & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2049 of 2008) 
B 
DECEMBER 16, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
s.482 - Application by a doctor for quashing a criminal 
c complaint of medical negligence - Doctor claiming himself to 
be a child specialist, treating a child for Tuberculosis - Later, 
the child diagnosed in the advance stage of Leukemia - Death 
of child - High Court dismissing the application - HELD: It 
cannot be said that materials brought on record by 
t-
D 
complainant, even if given face value, do not disclose an 
offence - No interference with order of High Court called for. 
PROFESSIONAL ETHICS: 
~ 
Medical profession - HELD: A doctor should not profess 
himself to be a child specialist unless he has the requisite 
E 
expertise. 
Appellant No. 1, a doctor, claiming himself to be a 
child specialist, was treating the child of respondent no. 
2 since 22.6.2000, for Tuberculosis, but the condition of 
· the child kept on deteriorating. On 4.10.2000, at ttie 
F 
instance of another doctor, it was detected that the child 
was in the advance stage of Leukemia and her liver was 
} 
enlarged. The child was taken to Apollo Hospital where 
also her ailment because of Leukemia was diagnosed. 
The child breathed her last on 10.11.2000. Respondent 
G no. 2 filed a complaint uls 200 Cr.PC and ultimately 
processes were issued against the appellant by the 
Magistrate by his order dated 16.7.2004. The petition of -
~ 
the appellants filed uls 482 CrPC for quashing of the order 
i 
of the Magistrate, having been dismissed by the High 
H 
606 
~ 
, 
B. JAGDISH & ANR. v. STATE OF A.P. & ANR. 
607 
-
Court, they have filed the appeal. 
A 
.. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
-"' 
HELD:1.1. It is now a well settled principle of law that 
at the stage of quashing of an order taking cognizance, 
an accused cannot be permitted· to use the material, B 
which would be available to him only as his defence. \t 
would be left to the trial court to consider and weigh 
+ 
materials brought on record by the parties for the, 
purpose of marshalling and appreciating the evidence. 
The jurisdiction of courts, at this stage, is limited as to c 
whether a case of reckless/gross negligence has been 
made out or not. In the instant case, the civil liability of 
the appellant having been determined, at this stage it may 
not be relevant to consider the charges against him on 
the touchstone of standard of proof required for proving 
a case of criminal negligence, as the same would fall for D 
consideration at the hands of the trial court at an 
,J. 
appropriate stage. [Paras 28 and 29] [614-F-G] 
1.2. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of 
the case, it cannot be said that the materials brought on . 
record by the complainant, even if given face value and 
E 
taken to be correct in their entirety, do not disclose an 
~ 
offence. This is so because there are two sets of 
-
opinions; one in favour of the complainant and another 
-I 
in favour of the appellants. Which opinion would 
ultimately prevail is essentially a question to be F 
~ 
determined by the trial court upon considering the 
evidence adduced by the parties hereto in their entirety. 
[Para 33] (616-~-B] 
State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 
568, referred to. 
G 
2. A person should not profess himself to be a child 
specialist unless he has the requisite expertise. Unless 
the appellant had a special skill to treat the child, 
;. 
ordinarily he could not have treated her, not because he 
was wholly incompetent therefor but because it required H 
t' 
608 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 
A 
a specialized skill keeping in view the nature of the 
disease the child was suffering from. [Para 24 and 25] 
[613-G; 614-A-B] 
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2005) 6 SCC 1 
an~ Suresh Gupta (Dr.) v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2004) 6 SCC 
B 422, referred to. 
c 
Case Law Reference: 
(2005) 1 SCC 568 
referred to 
Para 32 
(2005) 6 SCC 1 
referred to 
Para 13 
(2004) 6 SCC 422 
referred to 
Para 17 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 2049 of 2008. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.2006 of the 
High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Crl. 
o Petition No. 721 of 2006. 
E 
C.S.N. Mohan Rao, R. Santhan Krishnan, Radha Rani, 
R.K. Pandey and D. Mahesh Babu for the Appellant. 
A.D.N. Rao, A Subba Rao, AT. Rao, Altaf Fat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.