'Police Can't Conduct Roving Enquiry In Guise Of Inquest': Karnataka High Court Quashes Notices To Hospital, Staff In Unnatural Death Case

The Karnataka High Court has on August 10 [Monday] quashed the multiple notices under Section 94 and Section 179 of BNSS issued by the police to Cloud Nine Hospital and its staff-including its female employees, in connection with the unnatural death of a patient following a polypectomy procedure. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 287]

“….when the petitioners have responded to every notice, furnished every document sought, cooperated throughout the enquiry, and yet continue to be subjected to successive requisitions wholly disproportionate to the object of an enquiry under Section 194 of the BNSS, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned notices amount to a patent abuse of the process of law. Their continuation would not advance the object of the inquest; it would only legitimise an exercise of power that the statute itself does not sanction”, the single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna noted in the order while quashing the notices issued by the police.

The court, however, clarified that the observations made in the order wouldn't affect an independent inquiry by Karnataka Medical Council to ascertain negligence, if any.

“…It is for the Medical Council, aided by medical experts, to evaluate the technical aspects of the procedure, scrutinise the medical records, assess the functioning of the equipment, and arrive at an independent conclusion in accordance with law. The police cannot, by resorting to repeated notices, convert an inquest into a disciplinary or criminal investigation before the statutory process has even taken its course…”, the court said.

The single judge bench also noted that an enquiry to ascertain a patient's apparent cause of death cannot be permitted to transcend into 'crippling the functioning of a hospital' or preventing it from discharging its 'primary obligation of providing medical care' to 'innumerable' patients.

“…The investigating agency appears to have proceeded on an erroneous assumption that an enquiry under Section 194 of the BNSS confers powers identical to those exercisable after registration of a cognizable offence. It does not. The statute carefully maintains the distinction; the Apex Court has repeatedly reinforced it. The police cannot, under the guise of conducting an inquest, embark upon a roving and fishing enquiry or assume powers that become available only after an FIR sets the criminal law in motion, a caveat it would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case…”, the court said.

The single judge bench has further drawn a clear distinction between limited scope of unnatural death enquiry under Section 194 BNSS, and full-fledged criminal investigation. Proceedings under Section 174 merely seek to determine whether the death was accidental, suicidal, homicidal or otherwise unnatural and the apparent manner in which such death occurred, the court said.

“…Proceedings under Section 174 are not investigations into an offence. They are merely enquiries to ascertain the apparent cause of death. The Court[apex] emphatically holds that the enquiry does not extend to discovering who committed the offence, how the offence was committed, under what circumstances it was committed, or who should ultimately face prosecution. Those are matters which arise only upon the registration of a First Information Report under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. (now the corresponding provision under the BNSS), setting in motion the investigative machinery contemplated by law…”, the court held by relying on precedents.

The Court noted that, despite the settled law, the investigating officer appeared to have completely discarded the distinction between an enquiry under Section 194 of the BNSS and an investigation pursuant to registration of an FIR.

“…. An enquiry under a UDR is intended to ascertain the circumstances surrounding an unnatural death. It is not a licence for an unrestricted fishing expedition nor does it confer upon the investigating agency an unfettered authority to summon every individual remotely associated with the treatment or to repeatedly interfere with the functioning of a hospital…”, the court added.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Dr. Vinuta B. and M/s Kids Clinic India Limited, which operates Cloudnine Hospital, challenging the police investigation into the death of a patient who underwent a hysteroscopic polypectomy procedure on May 20, 2026. According to the hospital, during the procedure, an unforeseen intra-operative complication arose, and despite resuscitative efforts, the patient succumbed to death.

Eight notices were sent to the hospital under Section 94 BNSS by the police asking for more information on the death of the said patient. The Hospital claimed to have cooperated with the police fully by furnishing CCTV footage, inpatient records, the complete unedited video recording of the surgery. Another series of notices were sent on June 23, 2026 asking for further medical logs and production of anaesthesia machines and other operation theatre equipment.

Additionally, notices under Section 179 of the BNSS were issued to as many as ten women members of the hospital staff, which required them to appear before the police station for giving evidence.

“…The tenor and sweep of these notices are startling. They 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 opined further about the impugned actions of the police.

The plea was allowed. 

Case Title: Dr. Vinuta B. & M/s Kids Clinic India Ltd. (Cloudnine Hospital) v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Case No: WP 19927/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 287

Click Here To Read/Download Order