The Allahabad High Court has quashed a Cheating Case Against IVF Doctor Sarita Teotia, holding that the failure of IVF treatment to produce a pregnancy does not, by itself, show the fraudulent intent needed for an offence under Section 420 IPC.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has set aside a Bulandshahr magistrate’s summoning order against a fertility specialist and quashed the entire complaint case accusing her of cheating a couple whose IVF treatment did not result in pregnancy [Dr. Sarita Teotia v. State of U.P. and Another].
Justice Chawan Prakash allowed the application under Section 482 CrPC filed by Dr. Sarita Teotia by an order dated October 26, 2026.
The complaint
The complainant, Jaiveer Singh, alleged that his wife had been unable to conceive since their marriage and that he took her to the applicant at Teotia Hospital and Fertility Centre, Bulandshahr, for IVF treatment. According to the complaint, the doctor said she could help his wife conceive through IVF, he paid Rs 3.5 lakh in instalments but received a receipt for only Rs 1.6 lakh, and his wife did not conceive. He further alleged that the doctor put off and eventually refused his demand for a refund.
Alleging police inaction, he moved an application under Section 156(3) CrPC. The magistrate treated it as a complaint, recorded statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, and on November 30, 2018 the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Bulandshahr summoned the doctor under Section 420 IPC in Complaint Case No. 2285 of 2017. Her revision was dismissed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr on October 16, 2020 in Criminal Revision No. 36 of 2019.
The arguments
Advocate Pratik J. Nagar, for the doctor, argued that no medical procedure, least of all IVF, comes with a guaranteed result, and that an unsuccessful cycle cannot be treated as proof of a dishonest intention at the start of the treatment. Advocate Shyam Babu Vaish, for the complainant, and A.G.A. Jyoti Kumar Singh, for the State, supported the summoning order as resting on a prima facie view formed from the statements recorded by the magistrate.
What the Court held
Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, the Court noted that medical science is not an exact science and that a doctor cannot guarantee a cure. Applying that to the case, it held:
“Medical statistics universally acknowledge that IVF procedures have inherent failure rates that depend on numerous physiological factors. Offering IVF treatment cannot be equated with a legal guarantee of pregnancy.”
The Court found that the complainant had failed to show any fraudulent intention when the consultation began, and that the money paid “represented professional fees charged for medical services and procedures rendered over time.” It warned:
“Allowing criminal prosecution under Section 420 I.P.C. for unsuccessful medical treatment would set a dangerous precedent, subjecting medical professionals to criminal liability whenever a medical procedure does not yield the desired result.”
Both the magistrate and the revisional court, it said, failed to see that the dispute at best concerned an unsuccessful procedure or a monetary claim without the mens rea required for cheating, and that “Proceeding with the trial on these facts constitutes a clear abuse of the process of the Court.”
Summoning is a serious matter
The Court also faulted the manner in which the doctor was summoned. Producing two witnesses in support of a complaint, it said, is not enough to set the criminal law in motion:
“The Magistrate is not a silent spectator when preliminary evidence is recorded before summoning the accused. The Magistrate must carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations.”
Finding that the summoning order had been passed “in a very casual and mechanical manner, without carefully applying his judicial mind” and that no prima facie case was made out, the Court quashed the summoning order of November 30, 2018, the revisional order of October 16, 2020 and the entire proceedings of the complaint case.
Why the order matters
Fertility treatment is costly and emotionally charged, and failed cycles often lead to disputes over fees. The ruling draws a clear line: an unsuccessful IVF cycle may give rise to a civil or consumer claim if there is a deficiency, but it is not cheating unless deception existed from the very start.
The order also reminds magistrates that summoning a doctor, or anyone, to face a criminal trial requires real scrutiny of the preliminary evidence, not a routine endorsement of the complaint.
Case Title: Dr. Sarita Teotia v. State of U.P. and Another [Application U/S 482 No. 19362 of 2020]
Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:222383
Bench: Justice Chawan Prakash, Allahabad High Court
Date of Order: October 26, 2026
For the Applicant: Pratik J. Nagar, Advocate
For Opposite Party No. 2: Shyam Babu Vaish, Advocate
For the State: Jyoti Kumar Singh, A.G.A.