Criticising the city police for what it termed as a “patent abuse of process”, the Karnataka High Court has quashed multiple notices issued to a private hospital for production of even operation theatre equipment and summoning several women staff in the absence of any First Information Report (FIR) but acting solely on an Unnatural Death Report (UDR), registered on the information furnished by the hospital itself.

“The tenor and sweep of these notices are startling. The police seek not merely records or documents but virtually the very machinery and equipment employed in the hospital. Compliance in the manner demanded would have had the inevitable consequence of paralysing the functioning of the hospital itself, thereby affecting not merely the petitioners but countless patients dependent upon the institution for medical care,” the court observed.

The court also made it clear that “the criminal investigation, however important, cannot be permitted to assume proportions that disable a functioning healthcare institution from discharging its primary obligation towards society”.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while allowing a petition, filed by a gynaecologist and the private hospital situated at Doddakallasandra on Kanakapura Main Road, challenging the notices issued by the Konanakunte police.

The case related to an incident which occurred in the hospital on May 20 when a patient, while undergoing a hysteroscopic polypectomy, suffered a sudden deterioration in pulse and a critical drop in condition during the procedure, prompting immediate resuscitation efforts; owing to the medical emergency, she was immediately shifted to another hospital, where she died.

The private hospital, where the surgery conducted, informed the police about the unnatural death on the same day, and the father of the deceased had also lodged a complaint expressing doubt about the cause of the death. The police had registered an UDR under Section 194(3)(iv) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

The court noted that despite the hospital’s “unqualified cooperation” including providing the complete 36-minute surgical video, hospital’s CCTV footages, patient records, etc., the police issued further demands seeking the physical production of the digital operation theatre equipment and the anaesthesia machine after the hospital expressed inability to produce some data due to constrains in the architecture of an equipment.

Citing the apex court’s verdicts, Justice Nagaprasanna pointed out that investigation under Section 194 of BNSS is merely to determine whether the death was accidental, suicidal, homicidal or otherwise unnatural and the apparent manner in which such death occurred, and not in the same sense as an investigation into a cognisable offence after registering an FIR.

What Section 194 of BNSS permits is an enquiry; what has been undertaken by the police bears all the trappings of a criminal investigation, usually pressed into service after registering an FIR.

Meanwhile, the court clarified that its observations and quashing of police notices will not come in the way of proceedings already initiated by the Karnataka Medial Council, the statutory body to examine allegations of professional misconduct and medical negligence.

Published - August 11, 2026 07:56 pm IST