Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
11. The complainant alleged commission of offences under Sections 405, 420 and 120B, IPC in his complaint. For criminal breach of trust under Section 405, IPC, it is necessary that there must be entrustment of property to the accused; such entrustment must create a fiduciary obligation regarding the handling or use of that property; and the accused must have dishonestly misappropriated or converted the entrusted property.4 Applying these principles to the present case, the allegations in the complaint indicate that the amount of Rs. 2,500/- was paid by the complainant as part of the hospital bill towards charges for an HRCT test, at the time of discharge of the patient. The complaint does not contain any averment that the amount in question was entrusted to the hospital to be held or utilised for a fiduciary or trust-based purpose, nor does it refer to any legal or Sadhupati Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 8 SCC 547; Prof. RK Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam, (2019) 16 SCC 739. 592 contractual stipulation governing the manner in which such amount was required to be dealt with or any other averment to show as to how Section 405, IPC is made out. Furthermore, upon mistake being pointed out, the hospital had offered to refund the amount wrongly charged. Thus, in the absence of entrustment, dishonest misappropriation, or violation of a fiduciary obligation, foundational ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust as enshrined in Section 405, IPC are not satisfied.
12. For the offence of cheating under Section 420, IPC there must be deception on part of the accused from the very beginning; such deception must lead to fraudulent or dishonest inducement; and the accused must have had dishonest intention at the time the inducement was made.5 The allegation in the complaint is merely that the bill issued by the hospital reflected charge for a test that was not performed. Once the issue of wrong charge was raised by the complainant, the hospital communicated its decision to refund the amount. The discrepancy in billing appears to be more of an inadvertence, than a case of dishonest intention on part of the hospital. We are of the opinion that the allegation of cheating is completely misplaced.
13. For the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B, IPC there must be a prior agreement or meeting of minds for commission of an illegal act or a lawful act by illegal means.6 Moreover, where the foundational offences are not disclosed, a charge of conspiracy premised upon those offences ordinarily cannot stand independently.7 Since the allegations regarding offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating are virtually non-existent, the incidental allegation of criminal conspiracy is unsustainable. Furthermore, the complaint named not just the hospital and its staff but also the corporate entity running it and its Chairman. There is nothing in the complaint indicating a prior agreement, concerted plan, or meeting of minds among the accused persons to commit an unlawful act.
14. The complainant had also alleged improper conduct by the fourth appellant and the third respondent, employees of the hospital, as has been noticed in the impugned judgement as well. The Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59; Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P., (2003) 3 SCC 11; Alpic Finance Ltd. v. P. Sadasivan, (2001) 3 SCC 513. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600. R.K. Vijayasarathy (supra). [2026] 5 S.C.R. Narayana Health & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. allegations in the complaint relate to the alleged statements made by them discouraging the complainant from pursuing the matter any further. There is nothing more to this averment and it is important to note that neither the complaint nor the summoning order refers to commission of an offence under Section 503, IPC. The High Court while remanding the matter, on its own makes an observation that, “the aforesaid act of the two accused persons prima facie do make out an offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code” and that “offence has been made out”. We are of the opinion that there was no occasion for the High Court to construe the general averments and elevate them to the commission of an offence under Section 504 and then observe that offence has been made out.
15. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the 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.
16. The complaint also alleged grievance about non-supply or delay in supply of medical records. We are of the opinion that the 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 West Bengal Clinical Establishment (Registration, Regulation & Transparency) Act, 2017 or the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002. However, the complaint only refers to the commission of offence under Section 34 of the West Bengal Clinical Establishment (Registration, Regulation & Transparency) Act, 2017.
17. The above referred 2017 Act is intended to regulate the functioning of clinical establishments within the State, ensure transparency in medical services, standardise treatment protocols, and provide mechanisms for grievance redressal in matters relating to patient care, billing practices and service standards. Duties of clinical establishments such as the appellant hospital is declared in Section 7(3) of the 2017 Act, which is as follows: “7. Conditions for registration and license: (3) Every license granted under sub-section (1) shall be subject to the following terms and conditions:— 594 (c) that the clinical establishment shall not resort to any unethical or unfair trade practices including unfair pricing for different services; (e) that such information is to be displayed and in such manner as may be prescribed; (g) that such medical and other reports, records and documents shall be made available to the licensing authority or the service recipient or his representative on demand, as may be prescribed; (l) that every clinical establishment shall maintain a Public Grievance Cell for lodging of any complaint regarding treatment, improper billing, deficit in service, attending staffs’ behaviour etc. and for redressal thereof; (m) that every clinical establishment shall set up a proper Help Desk to maintain regular and proper communication with the service recipients or their representatives regarding treatment, recipient’s condition, regular billing etc. and for their proper counseling; (n) that every clinical establishment shall immediately after coming into force of this Act, implement e-Prescription, maintain Electronic Medical Records and provide a set of all medical records and treatment details along with the discharge summary at the time of discharge of the service recipient; (o) that every clinical establishment shall strictly follow the fixed rates and charges including the Package Rates for investigation, bed charges, operation theatre procedures, Intensive Care, ventilation, implants, consultation and similar tests and procedures, and any additional treatment or procedure shall not attract additional charges over and above such fixed rates and charges including the Package Rates; (p) that every clinical establishment shall provide proper estimates for treatments not covered in fixed rates and charges including the Package Rates, to the service recipients or representative of service recipients during [2026] 5 S.C.R. Narayana Health & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. initiation or due course of treatment, and final bills shall not exceed estimates by a certain percentage, as may be prescribed by the Government;
18. The 2017 Act provides remedies against violations and excesses by clinical establishments by establishing an adjudicatory mechanism. Section 35 provides for the appointment of an Adjudicating Authority to address grievances concerning patient care services, billing irregularities, non-supply of records, and service deficiencies. Under Section 36, the West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission is established to supervise, adjudicate, and compensate the consumers/patients.
19. While Section 29 provides for imposition of major and minor penalties for deficiencies8, Section 34 provides for criminal liability for declared offences and prescribes punishments.9 In other words, the 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, it is not permissible for the complainant to proceed with prosecution by just mentioning Section 34 in the complaint. We do not deny the fact that that complainant may have certain service-related grievances “29. Minor and major deficiencies: (1) Whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder resulting in such minor deficiencies, that do not pose any imminent danger to the health and safety of any patient or public and can be rectified within a reasonable time, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to fifty thousand rupees. (2) Whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder resulting in such major deficiencies, that pose an imminent danger to the health and safety of any member of the public or patient and which cannot be rectified within a reasonable time, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to ten lakh rupees. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section “minor deficiencies and major deficiencies” shall have such meaning as may be prescribed.” “34. Offences and punishments: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if any person— (a) violates the conditions of registration and license under this Act, he shall be liable for imprisonment which may extend to three years; or (b) causes death or injury of patient or service recipients due to negligence, shall be liable to punishment as provided in the Indian Penal Code, 1860. (2) The prosecution, trial etc. for the purpose of sub-section (1) shall be as per the provision contained under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.” 596 and these could be addressed under Section 29 of the 2017 Act. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that no criminal offence even under Section 34 of the 2017 Act is made out.
20. Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC to quash the criminal complaint and we are equally of the opinion that the High Court has failed to exercise such a power. In this view of the matter, we allow these appeals and set aside the judgement and order passed by the High Court in C.R.R. No. 967 of 2021 with CRAN No. 1 of 2021, dated 16.05.2023 and quash the Complaint Case No. C-533 of 2021.
21. Quashing of the above referred criminal complaint will have no bearing on the civil or statutory remedies that the complainant may exercise in accordance with law.
22. We place on record the assistance rendered by Mr. Gagan Gupta, learned Senior Advocate; along with Mr. Abhinay Sharma, Advocate on Record; Ms. Kirti Vyas, Advocate; and Mr. Kartik Rajpurohit, Advocate. Result of the case: Appeals allowed. †Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain