DR. (SMT.) MANORAMA TIWARI AND OTHERS versus SURENDRA NATH RAI

Citation: [2015] 9 S.C.R. 436 · Decided: 10-09-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 9 S.C.R. 436 
A 
DR. (SMT.) MANORAMA TIWARI AND OTHERS 
B 
v. 
SURENDRANATH RAI 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1193 of 2015) 
SEPTEMBER 10, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
s. 197 -
C 
Prosecution of judges and public servant - Sanction from 
the Government - Requirement of - Appellants-Medical 
Officers in govemment hospital performed surgery on the 
patient in the government hospital, however, the patient died 
- Criminal complaint by respondent-complainant before the 
D magistrate alleging commission of murder against the 
appellants-Application u/s. 197 by the appellants alleging 
that the prosecution against them not maintainable without 
sanction uls. 197 - Rejection of. by the magistrate as also 
·the High Court - On appeal, held: It is a clear case where 
E appellants were discharging their public duties, as they were 
performing surgery on the patient in the Government hospital 
- Appellants were Medical Officers in the Government 
Hospital -As such, the criminal prosecution of the appellants 
initiated by complainant not maintainable without the sanction 
F 
from the State Government - High Court erred in law in 
dismissing the revision filed bYappel/ants and affirming the . 
order of the Magistrate rejecting their application as to 
maintainability of the criminal complaint without sanction from 
the State Government- Thus, the order passed by High Court 
G as also magistrate set aside. 
H 
MatajogDubeyv. H.C. BhariAIR 1956 SC44:1955 SCR 
925 - followed. 
436 
DR. (SMT.) MANORAMA TIWARI v. SURENDRA NATH RAI 437 
Jacob Mathew v. ~ate of Punjab and Anr. (2005) 6 SCC A 
1: 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 307 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 307 
1955 SCR 925 
referred to 
followed 
Para 10 
Para 11 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No; 1193 of2015. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.04.2012 of the 
High Court of Judicature Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal 
Revision No. 220 of 2002. 
B 
c 
Ra.tnakar Dash, Piyush Kumar, Samir Ali Khan for the D 
Appellants. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is directed against order dated 16.4.2012, 
passed by the High Court of Judicature Chhattisgarh at 
Bilaspur, in Criminal Revision No. 220 of 2002 whereby/said 
Court has disposed of the criminal"revision, affirming or~er of 
E 
the Magistrate by which application under Section 197 of the 
F 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) moved by 
appellants was rejected. 
/ 
/ 
3. Brief facts of the case are that Miss Tapsi Rai, aged 14 
years, daughter of respondent Surendra Nath Rai, underwbnt G 
surgery on 5.8.1997 in Maharani Government Hospifal, 
I 
JagdaJpur, Bastar. The operation necessitated due to pain 
developed by the patient in the abdomen, was performed by 
the appellants, namely, Dr. (Smt.) Manorama Tiwari, Dr. S.R. 
Kawdo and Dr. Pradeep Pandey. Before conducting the H 
' ,_ 
438 
SUPREMECOURT~EPORTS 
(2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
surgery, consent to operate was taken from the respondent. 
However, even after surgery, the condition of the patient did 
not improve, and she died on the same day. 
4. A First Information Report was lodged by the 
B respondent after lapse of more than five months, i.e. on 
2.2.1998 relating to offence punishable under Section 304A 
of Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Jagdalpur against Dr. 
Manorama Tiwari and Dr. Pradeep Pandey (appellant Nos. 1 
and 3 respectively). Meanwhile, enquiry was got conducted 
C on the complaint of the respondent under orders of the District 
Magistrate, in which report dated nil shows that the surgeons 
were opined to be negligent. However, subsequently another 
enquiry was held under orders of the Government, in which 
Joint Controller Health Services, Bastar, submitted his report 
D dated 11.3.1998 with the finding that there was no negligence 
on the part of the surgeons. 
5. It appears that the police did not file charge sheet, and 
the complainant (respondent) filed criminal complaint before 
E the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur, making allegations 
of commission of murder against the appellants. Said case 
was registered as Criminal Complaint case No. 954 of 2000. 
The appellants moved an application on 18.10.2001 (No. 889 
of 2002) alleging that prosecution against them is not 
F maintainable without sanction as required under Section 197 
Cr.P.C. Said application was rejected by the Magistrate vide 
ord
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.