High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
KAHAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. - CRM-41259-M-2002  RD-P&H 34 (4 July 2005)
Kahan Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.
Present:- Shri Mohinder Kumar, Adv. For Shri R.S. Bains, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. R.K. Nihalsinghwala, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Surya Kant,J. (Oral):
The prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.66 dated 14.8.1999, under Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and section 26/27 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940, registered at police Station Verowal, District Amritsar as well as the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the report under section 173 Cr.P.C.
The petitioner is employed as a Constable with Punjab Armed Police. As per his own case, the petitioner has also been "practising electro-homeopathy". A letter dated 26.3.1999 was addressed by Civil Surgeon, Amritsar to all the Senior Medical Officers (SMOs) working in Primary Health Centres/Civil Hospitals to comply with the instructions dated 12.3.1999 of the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab vide which directions were issued to take action against "unregistered medical practitioners" as per the directions issued by this Court in some case.
Pursuant to the aforementioned instructions, the SMO, Civil Hospital, Crl. Misc. No.41259-M of 2002 - 2 -
Mianwind sent a complaint to the SHO, P.S. Verowal for taking action against the unregistered medical practitioners. The name of the petitioner also figured in the aforesaid list which led to the registration of the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1/T). After investigation, a charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-16/T) dated 22.2.2003 was also presented against the petitioner.
Aggrieved at the registration of the FIR and/or the further proceedings pursuant thereto, the petitioner has approached this court.
Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, reply by way of affidavit of Ashok Baath, SP (Detective), Police District Tarn Taran has been filed, the contents of paragraphs 1 and 5 of which being relevant, are reproduced below:-
"1. Para No.1 of the petition is correct to the extent that FIR No.66 dated 14.8.1999 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Verowal, District Amritsar. It is also correct that nothing was recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 9.12.1999 in the said FIR and was released on bail on the allegations of practising and prescribing Allopathic medicines in violation of the Indian Medical Council Act and in violation of Section 26/27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, in pursuance of the orders issued by this Hon'ble Court Crl. Misc. No.41259-M of 2002 - 3 -
dated 13.10.1998 for taking action against the unregistered medical practitioners. The petitioner is unregistered medical Practitioner, practising in Allopathic Medicines. It is incorrect that petitioner was practising Electro Homeopathy. It is incorrect that petitioner did not deal with any drugs. It is correct that the name of the petitioner is in the list of unregistered Medical Practitioners. It is incorrect that the FIR was lodged with an intention to destry the career of the petitioner. Rather the same was registered as per orders of this Hon'blke Court and to curb the unregistered medical practitioners practising in Allopathic medicines. It is correct that the petitioner has been selected as a Constable in the Punjab Police and is undergoing training at Police training college.
5. That para No.5 of the petition is incorrect and denied. It is correct that petitioner is not registered with Indian Medical Council. It is incorrect that petitioner was practising in Alternative System of Medicines like Electrohomeopathy Naturopathy, Accupressure and Yoga etc. The petitioner was practising in Allopathy and the case was registered on the basis of letter issued by the Senior Medical Officer, Crl. Misc. No.41259-M of 2002 - 4 -
Primary Health Centre, Mianwind, District Amritsar. Rest of the para of the petitioner is incorrect and denied specifically." (emphasis applied)
From the allegations made in the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1/T), charge-sheet (Annexure P16/T) and the stand taken by the respondents in their reply, reproduced above, prima-facie it appears that the petitioner has been practising "allopathic medicines" though he is not a registered medical practitioner. The petitioner's contention that he was practising "electro-homeopathy", was found to be false by the investigating agency.
The law in relation to quashing of criminal proceedings is well settled. In the case of R.P.Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, which has been recently reiterated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Zhandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Another, (2005) 1 SCC 122, the following parameters for such interference have been laid down:-
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. Want of sanction.
(ii) Where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; Crl. Misc. No.41259-M of 2002 - 5 -
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
As pointed out earlier, if one reads the allegations on their face value, the petitioner has been found to have been practising allopathic medicines and vide the impugned FIR penal action is sought to be taken against several quacks and that too in compliance with the directions issued by this Court. At this stage, neither any conclusive opinion in relation to innocence of the petitioner can, thus, be formed nor is it be desirable to draw such an inference.
Consequently, no case for interference by this court is made out. However, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the pleas before the learned trial court at an appropriate stage and the same shall be taken into consideration in accordance with law.
Needless to say that the interim order dated 14.3.2003 stands vacated.
November 11, 2005 [ Surya Kant ]
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.