# Satish Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 638
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-01
- **Case number:** Matter Under Article 227 No. 5913 of 2025
- **Bench:** Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satish-kumar-gupta-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-54630
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Govt. Advocate, eS.k. Mishra

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose for determination was whether, in
facts
and
circumstances
of
case,
the
continuation
of
criminal
proceedings
and
summoning order dated 15.09.2008 against
applicant, a duly qualified medical practitioner,
u/s 304A, 315, 323, and 506 IPC, constituted an
abuse of process of Court, particularly in view of
Medical Board's report exonerating applicant of
negligence, or whether, on the contrary, the
material on record disclosed prima facie case of
medical negligence warranting applicant's
prosecution.

Head Notes
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 304A, 315, 323 and
506 - Applicant, proprietor of Savitri
Nursing Home, filed application u/s 482
Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of summoning
order
dated
15.09.2008
and
entire
proceedings in u/s 304A, 315, 323, and
506
IPC,
arising
from
FIR
dated
29.07.2007 lodged by opposite party no. 2
- It was alleged that applicant, while
attending
delivery
of
complainant's
relative, exhibited negligence by delaying
surgery despite obtaining consent at
around 11:00 A.M., resulting in death of
foetus - Post-mortem report attributed
cause of death to prolonged labour, and
compl

## Text

638 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the petitioner is the owner of the
goods.

7. In light of the above findings,
the impugned order dated June 24,
2025 is quashed and set aside with a
direction upon the authority concerned
to grant an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner and thereafter pass a
reasoned order in accordance with
law, keeping in mind the principle
laid down in M/s Halder Enterprises
(supra), within a period of eight weeks
from date.

8. The writ petition is disposed of.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 638
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

Matter Under Article 227 No. 5913 of 2025
(Criminal)

Satish Kumar Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Manvendra Singh

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Petitioner
confined
his
prayer
seeking
relief
by
moving
the
discharge
application
before
the
Court concerned at the appropr iate
stage.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226 - The Bonded Labour
System (Abolition) Act, 1976 -
Section 21 - Offences under the
Bonded
Labour
System
(Abolition)
Act
are
tried
summarily
by
a
Magistrate
-
Petition disposed of .

Held-
Direction
issued
to
the
Court
concerned to cons ider and decide the
matter in terms of Chapter XX and
XXI
of
the
Code
of
C riminal
Procedure, 1973. (Para 5) (E-15)

Case Law Cited

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950 -
The
Bonded
Labour
System
(Abolition) Act, 1976
List of Keywords
Offences under the Bonded Labour
System
(Abolition)
Act;
Tried
summarily by a Magistrate

Case Arising From
Judgment
and
order
dated
07.04.2025 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Special
Judge
SC/ST
Act,
Baghpat,
in
Criminal Revis ion No. 69 of 2024
(Satish Kumar Gupta vs. State of
U.P.
and
another)
as
well
as
impugned
cognizance
order
dated
25.08.2017 passed by Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Baghpat in Criminal Case
No. 3599 of 2017 (State vs. Satish
Kumar Gupta) aris ing out of Case
Crime
No.
303
of
2017,
under
Sections 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 of the
Bonded
Labour
S ystem
(Abolition)
Act, 1976, Police Station Baghpat,
District Baghpat as well as entire
proceedings
of
aforesaid
Criminal
Case No. 3599 of 2017 (State Vs.
Satish Kumar Gupta) pending in the
Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Baghpat. (E-15)

Appearances for Parties

Counsel for Petitioner : - Manvendra
Singh
Counsel for Respondent : - G.A.
7 All. S.S. Enterprises Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
639
Judgment/Order of the High
Court

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ms. Nand
Prabha Shukla, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for
the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for
the State and perused the record.

2. The instant petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed with a prayer
to set aside the judgment and
order dated 07.04.2025 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Special Judge SC/ST Act,
Baghpat, in Criminal Revision No.
69 of 2024 (Satish Kumar Gupta
vs. State of U.P. and another) as
well as impugned cognizance
order dated 25.08.2017 passed by
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Baghpat in Criminal Case No.
3599 of 2017 (State vs. Satish
Kumar Gupta) arising out of Case
Crime No. 303 of 2017, under
Sections 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 of
the
Bonded
Labour
System
(Abolition)
Act,
1976,
Police
Station Baghpat, District Baghpat
as well as entire proceedings of
aforesaid Criminal Case No. 3599
of 2017 (State Vs. Satish Kumar
Gupta) pending in the Court of
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Baghpat.

3. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has confined his prayer
seeking
relief
by
moving
the
discharge application before the
Court concerned at the appropriate
stage.

4. Per contra, learned AGA
for
the
State
has
vehemently
opposed the aforesaid prayer and
relied
on
Section
21
of
the
Bonded
Labour
System
(Abolition) Act, 1976, which is
provided as under:-

"21. Offences to be tried
by Executive Magistrates.- (1)
The State Government may confer,
on an Executive Magistrate, the
powers of a Judicial Magistrate of
the first class or of the second
class for the trial of offences
under this Act; and, on such
conferment
of
powers,
the
Executive Magistrate on whom the
powers are so conferred, shall be
deemed, for the purposes of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(2 of 1974), to be a Judicial
Magistrate of the first class, or of
the second class, as the case may
be.

(2) An offence under this
Act may be tried summarily by a
Magistrate."

5. As the offences under the
Bonded
Labour
System
(Abolition) Act, 1976 are tried
summarily
by
a
Magistrate,
therefore, it is hereby directed to
the Court concerned to consider
and decide the matter in terms of
Chapter XX and XXI of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

6.

With
the
aforesaid
direction, the petition is disposed
of.
640 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 640
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

Crl. Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 28703 of
2008

Dr. Ashok Kumar Rai ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Senior Advocate, Shailendra Kumar Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate, eS.k. Mishra

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose for determination was whether, in
facts
and
circumstances
of
case,
the
continuation
of
criminal
proceedings
and
summoning order dated 15.09.2008 against
applicant, a duly qualified medical practitioner,
u/s 304A, 315, 323, and 506 IPC, constituted an
abuse of process of Court, particularly in view of
Medical Board's report exonerating applicant of
negligence, or whether, on the contrary, the
material on record disclosed prima facie case of
medical negligence warranting applicant's
prosecution.

Head Notes
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 304A, 315, 323 and
506 - Applicant, proprietor of Savitri
Nursing Home, filed application u/s 482
Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of summoning
order
dated
15.09.2008
and
entire
proceedings in u/s 304A, 315, 323, and
506
IPC,
arising
from
FIR
dated
29.07.2007 lodged by opposite party no. 2
- It was alleged that applicant, while
attending
delivery
of
complainant's
relative, exhibited negligence by delaying
surgery despite obtaining consent at
around 11:00 A.M., resulting in death of
foetus - Post-mortem report attributed
cause of death to prolonged labour, and
complainant further alleged assault by
employees of applicant and his associates
and fabrication of documents by applicant
and his staff - Applicant relied upon
Medical Board's report exonerating him of
negligence, contending that he was duly
qualified and proceedings were an abuse
of process of law - Opposite parties
asserted
contradictions
in
applicant's
statements, existence of two O.T. notes,
non-placement of post-mortem report
before Medical Board, and deliberate delay
in performing surgery due to absence of
anaesthetist.

Held:
Criminal liability arises if a doctor fails to
exercise ordinary care while treating a patient;
mens rea must be examined, and criminal
negligence is established if doctor acts without
such ordinary care - Instant matter is not case
where applicant does not possess requisite
qualification, but matter hinges on whether
applicant had exercised reasonable care in
providing medical service in time, or he had
acted carelessly - Case of pure misadventure
where doctor has admitted patient and after
taking go ahead for operation from patient's
family members, did not perform operation in
time as he was not having requisite doctor (i.e.
anaesthetist ) to perform surgery - As per
statement of anaesthetist he got a call at 3.30
p.m. and this delay (medical negligence) can
only be attributed to applicant - There is
contradiction in times of admission, consent and
operation, with two O.T. notes and post-mortem
report not placed
before Medical Board,
rendering its opinion unreliable; prima facie,
offence is made out against applicant - Although
consent was obtained at 12:00, thereafter
doctor suggested for operation but operation
was not carried out till 4/5 P.M., without
explanation, and post-mortem shows foetus
died
due to prolonged
labour, indicating
malafide
intention
of
applicant
-
Thus,
cognizance order issued after perusing material
collected during investigation, application is
devoid of merits and accordingly, dismissed.
[Paras 33, 34, 37, 38, 41, 47 ] (E-13)

Case Law Cited