Bengaluru: An inquiry under a UDR (unnatural death report) is intended to ascertain the circumstances surrounding an unnatural death. It is not a licence for an unrestricted fishing expedition, nor does it give the investigating agency unfettered authority to summon every individual remotely associated with the treatment or repeatedly interfere with a hospital’s functioning, the high court has ruled.Justice M Nagaprasanna has made this observation his order passed on Aug 10 while allowing the petition filed by a Bengaluru hospital.The judge also quashed the three notices issued by Konanakunte police to the said hospital following the death of a 29-year-old patient who underwent hysteroscopic polypectomy in May this year.The hospital and the doctor, a senior consultant in obstetrics and gynaecology, challenged a series of notices issued by police. The petitioners submitted that they had already filed six replies before the investigating agency.On the other hand, counsel for the deceased’s father submitted that his son-in-law had filed a complaint before the Karnataka Medical Council.Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the tenor and sweep of the notices sought not merely records or documents but virtually the machinery and equipment used in the hospital. As many as six notices were issued to women members of the hospital staff, directing them to appear at the police station to record their statements.“What is of considerable significance is that all these actions are undertaken not in the course of an investigation into a registered cognisable offence, but during an inquiry arising out of a UDR. The distinction is neither semantic nor superficial; it goes to the very root of the statutory power exercisable by police,” the judge said.Quoting the Supreme Court’s decision in Manoj Kumar Sharma, the judge noted that the top court had held that unless an FIR is registered disclosing the commission of a cognisable offence, police remain within the limited scope of an inquest under Section 174 of the CrPC, now Section 194 of the BNSS, governing UDRs.Police cannot, under the guise of an inquest, embark on a roving or fishing inquiry or assume powers available only after an FIR sets the criminal law in motion, the judge said, adding that the scope of such an inquiry would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.“The repeated issuance of notices, insistence on producing voluminous material already furnished, summoning of several hospital staff members and demand for the very equipment used in the operation theatre unmistakably indicate that the inquiry has travelled far beyond its statutory boundaries,” Justice Nagaprasanna observed.The investigating officer appeared to have blurred the well-settled distinction between an inquiry under Section 194 of the BNSS and an investigation following registration of an FIR, he added while granting relief to the petitioners.
