Case Title: Dr. Sarita Teotia v. State of U.P. and Another
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chawan Prakash
Decision Date: Monday, Twenty Sixth day of October, Two Thousand Twenty-Six.
Case Type & Number: Application U/S 482 No. 19362 of 2020 (Neutral Citation: 2026: AHC:222383)
FACTS
Treatment for Infertility: Opposite party no. 2, Jaiveer Singh, had taken his wife, Devendri to Dr. Sarita Teotia, Teotia Hospital and Fertility Centre, Bulandshahr for treatment of infertility as she was not able to become pregnant after marriage.
Treatment & Financial Payments: Dr. Teotia provided IVF treatment, and the payment was demanded to be of ₹ 3,50,000 (which was paid in instalments). The receipt was issued only for ₹ 1,60,000 and was not issued for the rest of the amount. The wife did not get pregnant at the hospital after having the IVF done.
Payment & Refunds: When the petitioner, Jaiveer Singh, requested a refund of his payment, Dr. Teotia refused him.
Criminal Proceedings: Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Singh was marked by the Magistrate as a private complaint (Complaint Case No. 2285 of 2017), The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Court No. 2, Bulandshahr, after recording the statements of the complainant under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., ordered the summoning of Dr. Teotia under Section 420 IPC on 30 November 2018.
Criminal Revision & High Court Approach: Dr. Teotia went before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in Criminal Revision (36/2019) against the summoning order. The revision was dismissed on 16 October 2020. Later, in a subsequent application under section 482 Cr.P.C. In the Allahabad High Court, she argued for quashing of summoning order and complaints proceedings against her.
ISSUES
- Does the omission of an act such as IVF inherently translate into an entry into the domain of cheating under Section 420 IPC owing to the lack of presence of mens rea, or the intent to commit a crime, at the beginning of the process?
- Study on whether the trial Magistrate had applied the proper judicial mind before summoning a qualified medical practitioner in terms of Section 420 IPC?
- Whether the High Court can use the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to prevent abuse of the court process, where the institution of criminal proceedings is based solely on an unsuccessful medical process.
KEY LEGAL PROVISIONS
Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property It is essential to establish that the cheating, dishonest inducement and intention to deceive were at the inception of the transaction.
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): Confers upon the High Court inherent powers to make orders to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice.
Sections 156(3), 200, 202, and 204 Cr.P.C.: Power to take cognizance of offences and to issue summons to witnesses when a complaint is made.
ARGUMENTS OF BOTH PARTIES
Applicant (Dr. Sarita Teotia): Qualified practitioner: She earned her MBBS in 1993 from Nagpur University and is the owner of a long-standing fertility clinic. No procedure such as IVF ensures 100% results. As an IVF procedure can fail due to physiological reasons, it can’t be termed as cheating or fraudulent. The ingredients of s. 420 IPC, dishonest inducement at the beginning were altogether absent. The fund collected was to cover professional charges of the doctors for the services provided over a period of time. The complaint was instituted in a malicious bid to recover the fee after treatment had proved abortive and is an abuse of process of court.
Opposite Parties (State of U.P. & Complainant):
Allegation of cheating: He paid ₹3,50,000 on the false claim of pregnancy but he got receipt of only ₹1,60,000 and no refund was obtained on failure of treatment.
Prima Facie Case: contended that at the Stage of Section 204 Cr.P.C, Magistrate is only obliged to arrive at a prima facie conclusion on the basis of pre-summoning statements. Both the courts below rightly held that a prima facie case of section 420 IPC was made out.
COURT’S ANALYSIS
Justice considered the case on the basis of settled Supreme Court law as under:
1. Difference Between Failure & Cheating: Referring to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), the Court has reiterated that if the allegations as mentioned in the complaint are to be accepted in the light that they do not constitute an offence, the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Should be utilized.
- Medical facts (Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, 2005): Court pointed out that medical science is not an exact science and a doctor can only provide a cure. Failure of IVF treatment does not prove deception or criminal intention.
- Lack of intention to commit a fraud from outset: The complainant did not demonstrate any fraudulent intent at the outset of the consultation. Charging a fee for professional services for the medical treatment provided did not amount to an unlawful inducement.
- Judicial mind in summon order: Summons of accused is a serious issue and it must be tested judicially before proceedings. The trial Magistrate has mechanically and casually passed the summons without applying his judicial mind to whether the ingredients of Section 420 IPC are made out.
JUDGMENT
Allahabad High Court granted the Section 482 application. Set aside the orders: the summoning order dated 30 November 2018 issued by the ACJM, Bulandshahr, and the revision order dated 16 October 2020 issued by the Additional District and Sessions Judge.
Whole complaint proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2285 of 2017 was quashed against Dr. Sarita Teotia.
CONCLUSION
Thus, the court reiterated that, a case of abortive treatment cannot be transformed into a criminal case under Section 420 IPC without clear proof of cheating in the beginning itself. By cancelling the complaint, the High Court of Allahabad saved the doctor from a false criminal prosecution for a failed operation and advised the Magistrates to exercise caution before issuing summons on a criminal complaint.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY- AASTHA KEDIA
