𝗕𝗔𝗖𝗞𝗚𝗥𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗗 𝗢𝗙 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗗𝗜𝗦𝗣𝗨𝗧𝗘
The case arose from a complaint filed by Jaiveer Singh against Dr. Sarita Teotia, a medical practitioner operating Teotia Hospital and Fertility Centre in Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh.
According to the complainant, his wife, Devendri, had been unable to conceive since their marriage. Approximately one and a half years before filing the complaint, he approached the doctor for fertility treatment. The doctor allegedly informed him that she could help his wife conceive through in vitro fertilisation (IVF).
The complainant alleged that he paid Rs. 3,50,000 in instalments towards the treatment. However, the doctor allegedly issued a receipt for only Rs. 1,60,000 and did not provide a receipt for the remaining amount.
Despite undergoing treatment, his wife did not conceive. When he subsequently requested a refund, the doctor allegedly postponed the matter and ultimately refused to return the money.
The complainant further alleged that the doctor made statements suggesting that misleading patients was a means of earning money and that she had influential connections.
Aggrieved by the alleged refusal to refund the amount, the complainant approached the police. As no action was allegedly taken, he initiated proceedings before the Magistrate.
𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗖𝗘𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗡𝗚𝗦 𝗕𝗘𝗙𝗢𝗥𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗠𝗔𝗚𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗘
The complainant initially filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The application was subsequently treated as a complaint case.
The Magistrate recorded the complainant's statement under Section 200 CrPC. The statements of his wife, Devendri, and another witness, Ravindra Singh, were recorded under Section 202 CrPC.
After considering the preliminary statements, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Bulandshahr, issued summons to Dr. Sarita Teotia for the alleged offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code by an order dated 30 November 2018.
Challenging the summoning order, the doctor filed Criminal Revision No. 36 of 2019 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr. However, the revisional court dismissed the revision on 16 October 2020.
Consequently, the doctor approached the Allahabad High Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of both orders and the entire criminal proceedings.
𝗔𝗥𝗚𝗨𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗦 𝗢𝗙 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧𝗜𝗘𝗦
The doctor's counsel contended that the applicant was a qualified medical practitioner who had provided fertility treatment to the complainant's wife.
It was argued that no medical procedure, particularly IVF, carries a 100% guaranteed success rate. Therefore, the failure of the treatment could not automatically establish that the doctor had dishonestly induced the complainant to pay money.
The defence further submitted that the essential ingredients of cheating, particularly dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time of making the promise, were absent. It was also contended that the complaint had been initiated out of vengeance after the doctor refused the complainant's demand for a refund.
Opposing the application, the complainant and the State submitted that the Magistrate had correctly formed a prima facie opinion based on the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC.
They argued that the Magistrate was required only to determine whether a prima facie case existed before issuing summons under Section 204 CrPC and that the orders passed by the lower courts did not suffer from any illegality.
𝗟𝗘𝗚𝗔𝗟 𝗜𝗡𝗚𝗥𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗦 𝗢𝗙 𝗖𝗛𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗨𝗡𝗗𝗘𝗥 𝗦𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝟰𝟮𝟬 𝗜𝗣𝗖
The High Court examined the essential ingredients required to constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC.
The Court explained that the following elements must be established:
1. Deception of a person.
2. Fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to deliver any property.
3. An intention to deceive existing at the very inception of the transaction or promise.
The existence of dishonest intention at the time of inducement is particularly important. A subsequent failure to fulfil an expectation or obligation does not, by itself, establish that the accused intended to cheat from the beginning.
The Court relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, concerning the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
The Court also referred to Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1, wherein the Supreme Court recognised that medical science is not an exact science and that a medical practitioner cannot guarantee a cure.
𝗪𝗛𝗬 𝗨𝗡𝗦𝗨𝗖𝗖𝗘𝗦𝗦𝗙𝗨𝗟 𝗜𝗩𝗙 𝗧𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝗗𝗜𝗗 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗕𝗟𝗜𝗦𝗛 𝗖𝗛𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚
Applying these principles, the High Court observed that IVF is a specialised medical procedure with inherent possibilities of failure. Its outcome depends on several physiological factors, and offering IVF treatment cannot be equated with guaranteeing pregnancy.
The Court found that the complainant had failed to demonstrate any fraudulent intention on the part of the doctor when the medical consultation commenced.
It further observed that the money received by the doctor represented professional fees charged for medical services and procedures provided over a period of time.
The Court distinguished between an unsuccessful medical procedure or a monetary dispute and the criminal offence of cheating. Merely because a medical procedure fails to produce the desired result, it cannot automatically be concluded that the doctor had dishonestly induced the patient to undertake the treatment.
The Court cautioned that permitting criminal prosecution under Section 420 IPC merely because medical treatment was unsuccessful would set a dangerous precedent, exposing medical professionals to criminal liability whenever a procedure failed to achieve the desired outcome.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the allegations did not establish the necessary fraudulent intention or mens rea to constitute cheating under Section 420 IPC.
𝗗𝗨𝗧𝗬 𝗢𝗙 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗠𝗔𝗚𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗘 𝗕𝗘𝗙𝗢𝗥𝗘 𝗜𝗦𝗦𝗨𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗦𝗨𝗠𝗠𝗢𝗡𝗦
Another important aspect examined by the High Court was the manner in which the Magistrate had issued the summoning order.
The Court emphasised that summoning an accused person to face criminal proceedings is a serious judicial exercise. Criminal law cannot be set in motion as a matter of course merely because a complainant has produced witnesses supporting the allegations.
Before issuing process, the Magistrate must carefully examine the nature of the allegations and the oral and documentary evidence available on record. The Magistrate must independently determine whether the material discloses the commission of an offence.
The Court further explained that the Magistrate is not merely a passive authority during the recording of preliminary evidence. The Magistrate may put questions to the complainant and witnesses to ascertain the truthfulness of the allegations.
On examining the summoning order in the present case, the High Court found that the Magistrate had acted casually and mechanically without properly applying judicial mind to the facts and applicable legal principles.
The Court therefore held that the summoning order was legally unsustainable.
𝗥𝗘𝗟𝗘𝗩𝗔𝗡𝗧 𝗘𝗫𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗦 𝗙𝗥𝗢𝗠 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗝𝗨𝗗𝗚𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧
The following are verbatim extracts from the Allahabad High Court's judgment in Dr. Sarita Teotia v. State of U.P. and Another, Application U/S 482 No. 19362 of 2020.
1. On the distinction between medical failure and cheating:
Paragraph 8:
"The distinction between a mere breach of contract or medical failure and the offence of cheating depends on the intention of the accused at the time of the inducement. Mere failure to achieve a successful medical outcome does not automatically establish fraudulent intent."
2. On the failure of medical treatment:
Paragraph 10:
"The failure of a treatment or procedure does not, by itself, imply negligence, much less criminal liability or fraud under the Indian Penal Code."
3. On IVF treatment and fraudulent intention:
Paragraph 11:
"Offering IVF treatment cannot be equated with a legal guarantee of pregnancy. Opposite party No. 2 has failed to demonstrate any fraudulent intention on the part of the applicant at the time the medical consultation commenced."
4. On the duty of the Magistrate before issuing summons:
Paragraph 13:
"It is a settled principle of law that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set in motion as a matter of course. Merely producing two witnesses to support the allegations in the complaint is not sufficient to have the criminal law set in motion."
The Court further observed in the same paragraph:
"The Magistrate is not a silent spectator when preliminary evidence is recorded before summoning the accused. The Magistrate must carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations."
5. On the mechanical issuance of summons:
Paragraph 14:
"A perusal of the summoning order shows that the learned Magistrate passed it in a very casual and mechanical manner, without carefully applying his judicial mind."
These observations are significant because they clarify that unsuccessful medical treatment does not, by itself, establish criminal cheating and that Magistrates must independently examine the available evidence before issuing summons.
𝗙𝗜𝗡𝗔𝗟 𝗗𝗘𝗖𝗜𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗢𝗙 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗛𝗜𝗚𝗛 𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗥𝗧
After examining the complaint, the preliminary statements and the orders passed by the lower courts, the Allahabad High Court concluded that no prima facie case under Section 420 IPC was made out against the doctor.
The Court held that the complainant had failed to establish the essential ingredient of fraudulent intention at the inception of the transaction. The unsuccessful IVF treatment and the subsequent monetary dispute were insufficient, on the facts of the case, to justify criminal prosecution for cheating.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the application under Section 482 CrPC and quashed:
1. The summoning order dated 30 November 2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr, in Complaint Case No. 2285 of 2017.
2. The revisional court's order dated 16 October 2020 passed in Criminal Revision No. 36 of 2019.
3. The entire criminal proceedings in the complaint case.
𝗟𝗘𝗚𝗔𝗟 𝗦𝗜𝗚𝗡𝗜𝗙𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗢𝗙 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗗𝗘𝗖𝗜𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡
The decision reiterates that the failure of medical treatment cannot automatically be converted into the criminal offence of cheating. For prosecution under Section 420 IPC, there must be material indicating deception and dishonest or fraudulent intention existing when the patient was induced to undertake the transaction.
The judgment also reinforces the distinction between medical failure, monetary disputes and criminal wrongdoing.
Equally importantly, it reiterates that Magistrates must exercise independent judicial scrutiny before issuing summons and cannot mechanically initiate criminal proceedings merely because allegations are supported by preliminary witness statements.
The decision does not grant medical professionals immunity from criminal prosecution in cases involving actual fraud or other independently established offences. It clarifies that unsuccessful treatment, without the essential ingredients of cheating, is insufficient to sustain criminal prosecution under Section 420 IPC.
Dr. Sarita Teotia v. State of U.P. and Another
Court: Allahabad High Court
Case Number: Application U/S 482 No. 19362 of 2020
Date: 26 October 2026
Judge: Justice Chawan Prakash
