HYDERABAD: A division bench of Sindh High Court’s Hyderabad circuit on Tuesday suspended proceedings in a criminal case against 24 doctors accused of providing “deficient treatment” leading to the death of a dengue patient at the Liaquat University Hospital, Hyderabad, on Oct 22, 2025.
An FIR (No. 316/25) was lodged against them under Sections 302 and 147 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) after the death of Hasnain Amir, a 17-year-old pre-medical student, at the Market police station by his father, Amir Lutuf Ali Zardari.
Hearing the constitutional petition filed by Mohammad Iqbal and 23 others through Advocate Maisum Hussain Sahar, the bench comprising Justice Adnan ul Karim Memon and Justice Mohammad Jaffer Raza suspended criminal proceedings against them.
The bench put off further hearing to a date in office after two weeks, and said that in the meanwhile, the proceedings emanating out of the FIR No 316/25 registered with the Market police station would remain suspended.
It issued notices to the Sindh Additional Advocate General (AAG) and all respondents — the health secretary, LUMHS registrar, LUH medical superintendent, Hyderabad SSP, SHO of the Market police station — besides the complainant and investigation officer of the case.
The bench noted in its order that petitioners were practising doctors who have sought quashment of the FIR.
The petitioners’ counsel referred to a Sindh High Court judgement dated Dec 4, 2025 wherein it was decided that in the presence of the Sindh Health Care Commission Act, 2013, no direct FIR could be registered against practising doctors without adhering to the provisions of the Act.
He submitted that in the noted case, a division bench of the court had quashed the proceedings against the accused medical practitioners on the grounds enumerated therein.
Advocate Sahar contended that according to the complainant, the patient was not given proper treatment and the deficiency contributed to his son’s death. The counsel said that allegations raised clinical questions concerning the patient’s condition, treatment indicated at each state and services available and responsibilities of the persons concerned.
He submitted that on a court’s order, the Market SHO was directed to record the complainant’s statement and register an FIR if a cognizable offence was made out. The order also mentioned that assistance of the SHCC should be sought. It had restrained police from making any arrest without tangible evidence.
The counsel pointed out that the FIR (No. 316/25) was registered at the Market police station initially under Sections 302 and 147 PPC. He said the petitioner doctors had disputed the allegations concerning deficient treatment. He stated that the allegations were referred to SHCC and on July 3, 2026, the SHCC identified shortcomings concerning triage, timely senior review, clinical documentation, recognition and management of deterioration and escalation of care.
He submitted that the SHCC had asked for improvement in procedures, documentation, communication, training, emergency management and related compliance. He stated that the criminal proceedings now impugned included a final report / challan under Section 173 Cr.PC and proceedings under Section 322, read with Section 34 PPC in place of the original Sections 302 and 147 PPC.
He informed the court that after the proceedings arising from the said FIR, non-bailable warrants were issued against his clients on Oct 14, 2026 and the petitioners sought judicial scrutiny of that order on its recorded reasons, the service material, previous process and status of each petitioner.
The petitioners prayed the court to examine the record relating to the said FIR and declare that criminal proceedings could not be continued against the petitioners merely on the basis of institutional or systemic deficiencies.
He also prayed the court to quash the FIR 316/2025 and consequential criminal proceedings.
Published in Dawn, October 21st, 2026
