LexNARAYANA HEALTH & ORS. versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.