The Karnataka High Court set aside a series of police notices issued during an inquiry into an unnatural death, holding that the police had overstepped the limited scope of a Section 194 BNSS investigation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners - Dr. Vinuta B, a senior obstetrics-gynecology consultant, and M/s Kids Clinic India Limited, the operator of Cloudnine Hospital - challenged eight notices issued by the investigating police officer (respondent No. 6). The notices, dated between 20 May 2026 and 23 June 2026, sought production of hospital records, CCTV footage, the operative hysteroscopy video, and even the physical hysteroscopy equipment itself. The petitioners argued that the notices transformed a statutory inquiry into a de-facto criminal investigation, thereby harassing the hospital and its staff.
Key Facts
- 20 May 2026: Dr. Vinuta performed a hysteroscopic polypectomy on 29-year-old Smt. Spoorthi Chithriki at Cloudnine Hospital, Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru. The patient suffered an intra-operative complication, was resuscitated, and later died at Manipal Hospital.
- 20 May 2026: The hospital informed the jurisdictional police station (Konanakunte) of the death. The police registered an Unnatural Death Report (UDR) under Section 194(3)(iv) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
- 20 May 2026: First notice (KKPS/UDR/NO/33/2026) issued by respondent No. 6 demanding information.
- 21 May 2026: Second notice demanding DVR and patient records.
- 26 May 2026: Hospital provided 36 sheets of inpatient records and a 64 GB pen-drive containing CCTV footage.
- 04 June 2026: Third notice demanding the complete unedited hysteroscopy video.
- 07 June 2026: Hospital furnished the 36-minute-22-second video.
- 19 June 2026: Fourth notice seeking additional documents.
- 23 June 2026: Three separate notices issued under Section 94 BNSS demanding the hysteroscopy equipment, its physical production, and the appearance of Dr. Vinuta for evidence recording.
- 30 June 2026: Fifth notice seeking further documentation.
- Multiple dates in July 2026: The Court issued interim orders directing the hospital to place treatment records, discharge summary, and post-mortem report on record; to facilitate inspection of the operative equipment by a qualified technician; and to list the matter on fresh-matter lists (01-07-2026, 03-07-2026, 07-07-2026, 14-07-2026, 22-07-2026).
Procedural History
- 10 July 2026: Writ Petition No. 19927 of 2026 (GM-RES) filed before the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the BNSS.
- 01-07-2026 to 22-07-2026: Series of interim orders (see bullet-point timeline above).
- 10 August 2026: Judgment pronounced; the Court quashed all the impugned notices and awarded costs.
The Parties' Positions
- Petitioners: Assert that the police notices exceed the statutory mandate of an inquiry under Section 194 BNSS, amount to harassment, and violate the procedural safeguards articulated in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1.
- Respondents: Contend that the death may involve medical negligence; the police require comprehensive evidence to determine the cause of death and therefore the notices are lawful.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought (A) quashing of notices numbered KKPS/UDR/NO/33/2026 dated 20-05-2026, 21-05-2026, 04-06-2026, 19-06-2026, 30-06-2026 and the three notices of 23-06-2026; (B) a writ of mandamus directing respondents 3-6 to observe the procedural safeguards laid down in Jacob Mathew; and (C) costs of the petition.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether notices issued by the police under Section 94 and Section 179 of the BNSS, in the course of an inquiry under Section 194, can lawfully compel a hospital to produce equipment, extensive video recordings, and to summon staff, thereby converting the inquiry into a criminal investigation without the registration of a cognizable offence.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
The petitioners relied on the Apex Court’s pronouncements in Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh (2016) 9 SCC 1, Rhea Chakraborty v. State of Bihar (2020) 20 SCC 184, and Amit Kumar v. Union of India (2025) SCC OnLine SC 631, emphasizing that an inquiry under Section 174 CrPC (now Section 194 BNSS) is limited to ascertaining the apparent cause of death and cannot be expanded into a full-blown criminal investigation. The petitioners also invoked Jacob Mathew to demand that police observe procedural safeguards and refrain from harassing medical personnel.
For the Respondents
The State argued that the death was suspicious and potentially attributable to medical negligence; therefore, the police required exhaustive documentation, including the operative equipment, to determine whether a cognizable offence had been committed. The respondents cited the investigative powers conferred by Section 94 and Section 179 of the BNSS, contending that these provisions empower the police to summon any person or material relevant to the inquiry.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by outlining the statutory framework of Section 194 BNSS, which mirrors the erstwhile Section 174 CrPC. It reiterated that the provision is intended solely to discover the apparent cause of death and is not a gateway to a criminal investigation unless a First Information Report under Section 154 BNSS is filed.
"The impugned notices amount to a patent abuse of the process of law."
The Court then examined the Apex Court’s jurisprudence:
- In Manoj Kumar Sharma, the Supreme Court held that the scope of an inquiry under Section 174 CrPC is “very limited” and does not permit the police to investigate the how and who of the alleged offence.
- Rhea Chakraborty reaffirmed that the police may not convert an inquest into a criminal probe without a cognizable offence.
- Amit Kumar clarified that the investigative machinery under Section 154 is distinct from the inquiry under Section 174/194.
The Court stressed that the notices issued on 20-05-2026, 21-05-2026, 04-06-2026, 19-06-2026, 30-06-2026 and the three notices of 23-06-2026 demanded the production of the hysteroscopy machine, its digital ecosystem, and compelled multiple staff members to appear repeatedly. Such demands, the Court observed, go beyond “information germane to an inquiry” and encroach upon the domain of a criminal investigation.
Furthermore, the Court noted that the Karnataka Medical Council, a statutory body empowered under the Medical Council Act, is the appropriate forum to examine allegations of professional misconduct or negligence. The police, therefore, could not usurp the Council’s jurisdiction by issuing sweeping notices.
The Court also evaluated the interim orders it had previously issued, confirming that the hospital had already complied with all reasonable requests, including furnishing CCTV footage, inpatient records, and the unedited surgical video. The continued issuance of notices was therefore “unreasonable, disproportionate and harassing.”
In light of the above, the Court concluded that the police had exceeded the statutory limits of Section 194 BNSS, and the notices were ultra vires.
The Verdict
The writ petition is allowed. All notices dated 20-05-2026, 21-05-2026, 04-06-2026, 19-06-2026, 30-06-2026 and the three notices of 23-06-2026 are quashed. The quashment does not affect any separate proceedings that the Karnataka Medical Council may initiate. The petitioners are awarded costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Inquiry vs Investigation Distinction
Practitioners must recognise that an inquiry under Section 194 BNSS is confined to establishing the apparent cause of death. Police cannot demand equipment, extensive logs, or compel staff to appear repeatedly unless a cognizable offence is registered under Section 154 BNSS.
- Actionable tip: When representing a medical institution, object to any notice that seeks material beyond the scope of the inquiry and cite Manoj Kumar Sharma and Jacob Mathew.
Role of the Medical Council
Allegations of medical negligence or professional misconduct must be referred to the appropriate statutory medical council. Police involvement should be limited to factual data required for the cause-of-death determination.
- Actionable tip: File a parallel representation before the Karnataka Medical Council to pre-empt police overreach.
Procedural Safeguards
The Court reaffirmed the procedural safeguards articulated in Jacob Mathew: the police must issue notices that are proportionate, specific, and limited to the inquiry’s purpose.
- Actionable tip: Draft a detailed representation invoking Jacob Mathew whenever police notices appear overly broad; request a stay on further notices pending judicial review.
Cost Implications
Costs may be awarded to the successful party in writ petitions challenging police overreach, providing a financial incentive to contest unlawful notices.
- Actionable tip: Include a prayer for costs in the writ petition to deter frivolous police notices.
