The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against Narayana Health and its officials in connection with an alleged inflated hospital bill and delayed supply of medical records, holding that the allegations did not disclose ingredients of offences such as cheating, criminal breach of trust, or conspiracy.
The Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed that the dispute essentially arose from a billing discrepancy of ₹2,500 relating to an HRCT test that was ultimately not conducted and for which the hospital had already offered a refund. The Court held that such allegations, even if accepted in entirety, did not amount to criminal offences under Sections 405, 420, or 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
The case arose after the complainant’s mother was admitted to Narayana Multispecialty Hospital, Barasat, Kolkata, for treatment of a fractured femur in February 2021. Following surgery and discharge, the complainant alleged discrepancies in billing and sought medical records from the hospital. Subsequently, the hospital revised the bill and informed the complainant that ₹2,500 charged towards an HRCT test had been wrongly included because the test was never conducted. The hospital offered to refund the amount through email communications.
Despite the refund offer, the complainant initiated criminal proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate alleging offences under Sections 406, 420, and 120B IPC along with Section 34 of the West Bengal Clinical Establishments (Registration, Regulation and Transparency) Act, 2017. The complaint also alleged that certain hospital staff behaved improperly and threatened the complainant when he questioned the billing and sought medical records.
The Magistrate issued summons to the accused persons, including the hospital, the company operating it, its Chairman, and certain employees. The High Court later set aside the summoning order and remanded the matter for reconsideration regarding the complicity of some accused persons residing outside the Magistrate’s territorial jurisdiction. However, while remanding the matter, the High Court observed that an offence under Section 504 IPC appeared to be made out.
The Supreme Court found fault with the High Court’s approach and reiterated the principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, referring to the landmark judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. The Court noted that criminal law cannot be invoked merely because a civil or service-related grievance exists.
While analysing the offence of criminal breach of trust, the Court observed that there was no “entrustment” of property or fiduciary obligation regarding the disputed amount. It held that the payment formed part of the hospital bill and there was no allegation showing dishonest misappropriation. The Bench further observed that once the discrepancy was pointed out, the hospital itself offered to refund the amount, thereby negating any criminal intent.
On the allegation of cheating under Section 420 IPC, the Court held that fraudulent or dishonest intention from the inception was completely absent. The Bench described the inclusion of the HRCT charge as an inadvertent billing discrepancy rather than deliberate deception.
The Court also rejected the allegation of criminal conspiracy, observing that there was no material indicating any prior agreement or meeting of minds among the accused persons to commit an unlawful act. Since the foundational offences themselves were not made out, the conspiracy allegation could not independently survive.
Regarding the allegation of threats by hospital staff, the Supreme Court noted that neither the complaint nor the summoning order invoked Section 503 IPC. The Court held that the High Court wrongly elevated general averments into a prima facie offence under Section 504 IPC while remanding the matter.
The Bench further clarified that grievances relating to improper billing, delay in supply of medical records, or deficiency in services may at best give rise to civil or statutory remedies under the West Bengal Clinical Establishments Act, 2017, or under medical ethics regulations, but cannot automatically attract criminal prosecution.
Examining the scheme of the 2017 Act, the Court noted that the legislation provides a complete adjudicatory framework for addressing patient grievances, including mechanisms for compensation, penalties, and regulatory supervision through the Adjudicating Authority and the West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission. The Court observed that the legislative intent was to treat such disputes primarily as service deficiencies rather than criminal offences.
Holding the case to be a fit instance for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court judgment, and quashed the entire criminal complaint pending before the Magistrate. However, the Court clarified that the complainant would remain free to pursue any civil or statutory remedies available under law.
Case Details
Case Title: Narayana Health & Ors. Versus The State Of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: JURISHOUR-1238-SC-2026
Case No.: SLP (CRL.) NOS. 10379-10380 OF 2023
Date: 13/05/2026
