The Bombay High Court has refused to quash an FIR against three doctors from the same family who were accused of switching off the oxygen supply to an ICU ward at a Pune hospital, observing that the allegations and material on record prima facie disclose offences against them.

The bench headed by Justice Ranjitsinha Bhonsale was hearing a petition filed by Dr Ramesh Kisanrao Sonawane, Dr Bhushan Sonawane and Dr Harshal Sonawane, who sought quashing of the FIR registered against them.

According to the prosecution, the three doctors, who are the in-laws of hospital owner Dr Mahendra Chavan, entered the hospital while a child was undergoing treatment in the ICU. They allegedly questioned the child's relatives about their presence outside the ICU, asked them to shift the child to another hospital and threatened Dr Chavan.

The prosecution alleged that during the ensuing commotion, the petitioners abused and threatened Dr Chavan and hospital staff and switched off the oxygen supply to the ICU. The child's condition allegedly deteriorated as a result. However, hospital doctors subsequently treated the child and stabilised his vital signs.

The accused doctors claimed that they had gone to the hospital because Dr Chavan's two children were unwell and suffering from fever. They alleged that the FIR was filed to settle personal scores.

Rejecting the plea, Justice Bhonsale noted that the complainant's allegations were prima facie supported by the material collected during the investigation. The chargesheet contained statements from nurses, hospital staff and the hospital's watchmen, which, according to the Court, supported the presence of the petitioners at the hospital during the incident.

"The allegations made by the complainant are prima facie made out," the Court observed, adding that there was sufficient material on record to proceed against the petitioners.

The Court further held that the defences raised by the doctors would have to be tested during the trial and could not be examined while exercising the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.

"In my considered opinion, the facts of the case do not make out a cause to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 of the CrPC," Justice Bhonsale said.

The Court accordingly dismissed the petition and refused to quash the FIR.

Advocate Vikas Shivarkar appeared for the petitioners, while Additional Public Prosecutor Megha Bajoria represented the State. Advocates Dhammaraj Shejul, Prajakta More and Neha Blani appeared for the complainant.

Case Title: Dr Ramesh Kisanrao Sonawane vs State of Maharashtra
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 2553 of 2022