Sabita Kumari vs State Of Bihar & Anr.

Date : 17-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.

The petitioner, who is the original complainant, has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the order dated 25.05.2016 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 190 of 2015 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, dismissing the criminal revision filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 28.09.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Bhagalpur, in Complaint Case No. 624 of 2015, dismissing the complaint of the petitioner under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner has also sought quashing of the aforesaid order dated 28.09.2015.

The case of the complainant/petitioner herein, who was working as Staff Nurse on contractual basis in the Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College and Hospital, is that though the contract of other staff nurses were renewed, but her contract was not renewed. It has further been alleged that during the course of an operation being performed on a patient having ‘Hepatitis B’, the petitioner sustained needle prick and despite due information to the concerned authorities for following the prescribed protocol of getting HBIG injection administered to her, no such steps were taken, rather she saw a news published in the newspaper that the Superintendent of the Hospital has got the required injection administered to all concerned in accordance with the safety protocols. It has further been alleged that the petitioner, on being asked by the correspondents of the newspaper, told the truth that no such injection has been made available to her, rather she had herself arranged for the said injection. Thereafter, though the authorities provided a cheque of Rs.20,700/- as compensation after nearly one and a half month of the incident, the petitioner was also served with a show cause notice for going to media and the renewal of contract of the petitioner was not done.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 28.09.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Bhagalpur, in Complaint Case No. 624 of 2015 under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. suffers from non-application of judicial mind as from a plain reading of the complaint, solemn affirmation and examination of the inquiry witnesses, an offence under Section 166B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is made out and the opposite party No.2 ought to have been summoned to face the trial.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has suffered huge loss and prestige in the society, petitioner being a contractual employee, a staff nurse, was not provided proper treatment even at the Hospital, where she was employed.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has vehemently opposed this application. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has submitted that none of the ingredients of Section 166B IPC is made out in the facts and circumstances of the case and that can only be done when contravention is with regard to the provisions of Section 357 C of the Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has further submitted that none of the offence prescribed under Section 166B IPC is made out against the opposite party No.2.

Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has submitted that the allegation of not making available the injection is baseless as, admittedly, an amount of Rs.20,700.00 was paid to the petitioner within one and a half month of the alleged occurrence and the real grievance of the petitioner is with respect to non-renewal of the contractual agreement, for which opposite party No. 2 cannot be held responsible and that is apparently the reason for implicating opposite party No. 2, and, hence, the prosecution against opposite party No.2 is malicious and vexatious one.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances as well as the fact that the present prosecution against the opposite party No. 2 is malicious and vexatious one when the grievance of the petitioner was redressed within one and a half months and apparently the main grievance was with respect to non-renewal of the contractual agreement of the petitioner, the prosecution against opposite party No.2 cannot be allowed to continue. Consequently, the impugned orders do not required interference.

This application, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed.