1. Investigation of the case registered as Crime No. 17/2005 P/S Sunderbani has culminated in filing charge sheet (challan) against the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 417/420/468 RPC. 2. Trial court while considering the record available as well as the submissions made in support and against framing of the charge, pursuant to order dated 24.10.2005 has prima facie found commission of offences punishable under Section 419, 468 and 471 RPC and offence punishable under Section 3/8 of Nursing Homes & Clinical Establishments (Registration & Licensing) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the "Nursing Homes Act") as such, has framed the charge against the accused. The accused has pleaded not guilty and has claimed to be tried, so the case was posted for production of prosecution witnesses. 3. The accused feeling aggrieved has filed the instant petition seeking quashment of the entire proceedings including the trial as initiated. 4. The gravamen against the accused is that the accused in the year 2005 had established a clinic at Sunderbani town in District Rajouri and had allegedly put up a Board at his clinic depicting the name of Dr. R.K. Gupta as Consultant in Ultrasound. 5. The police on receipt of reliable information about running of the Ultrasound clinic without any valid registration license and use of the name of Dr. R. K. Gupta as Sonologist to cheat the innocent, swung into action and raided the clinic in presence of a Magistrate. The accused was caught operating the ultrasound machine and also preparing the reports on the letter pad of Dr. R.K. Gupta. The accused having failed to produce the registration certification of the ultrasound centre was arrested and the clinic was sealed by the Executive Magistrate (Naib Tehsildar) Sunderbani. The Board under the style Vini Ultrasound Dr. R.K. Gupta Ex-Deputy Director Health Services Consultant Radiologist and Sonologist was seized. In the clinic papers under the style Vini Hospital and Diagnostic Centre Main Stop Janipura were also found. 6. At the time of raid two patients, namely, Abdul Gani and his daughter Mst. Raja were present in the clinic who stated that they were on way to hospital for medical check-up, when one person (accused) enquired as to where they were going, it is Abdul Gani who told him that Mst. 6. At the time of raid two patients, namely, Abdul Gani and his daughter Mst. Raja were present in the clinic who stated that they were on way to hospital for medical check-up, when one person (accused) enquired as to where they were going, it is Abdul Gani who told him that Mst. Raja has some stomach problem whereas he (Abdul Gani) has some kidney problem so are going to the hospital but the said person (accused) asked them for ultrasonography so as to ascertain the actual disease, then they accompanied him to the clinic where he collected Rs.900/ as fee. While he was conducting the ultrasound, police came and raided the clinic. 7. Learned counsel for the accused contended that the whole proceedings including the trial as initiated is totally abuse of process of law and resultantly is to cause miscarriage of justice. Buttressing the submission, the learned counsel submitted that the case could not be registered nor accused could be arrested. The offences shown to have been committed, as made mention of in the FIR, i.e. offences punishable under Section 417, 468 and 420 RPC are all non-cognizable offences. The police was required to adhere to the procedure as prescribed under Section 155 of Cr. P.C i.e. for investigation of such offences, police should have obtained the order of the Magistrate. 8. In the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex court in State of Haryana & Ors v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors (AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604) it has been held that: "the condition which is sine qua non for recording a First Information Report is that there must be an information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence". 9. If shall be quite relevant to quote para 32 and 33 of the said judgment: "32. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code, the said police officer has no other option except enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information." "33. In this connection, it may be noted that though a police officer cannot investigate a non-cognizable offence on his own as in the case of cognizable offence, he can investigate a non-cognizable offence under the order of a Magistrate having power to try such non-cognizable case or commit the same for trial within the terms under Section 155 (2) of the Code but subject to Section 155(3) of the Code. Further, under the newly introduced sub-section (4) to Section 155, where a case relates to two offences to which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable and, therefore, under such circumstances the police officers can investigate such offences with the same powers as he has while investigating a cognizable offence." 10. In view of the Sections as mentioned in the FIR i.e. Section 417, 420 and 468 RPC, it is clear that these offences are non-cognizable offence but while viewing the report as a whole, commission of offence punishable under Section 3/8 of the Nursing Homes Act is also made out, which is a cognizable offence. 11. In Chapter IV of the Nursing Homes Act, Section 11 provides that all the offences under this Act shall be cognizable. Section 12 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure a Judicial Magistrate of the first Class shall try an offence punishable under this Act. 12. Learned Magistrate has, on the basis of the material as has been collected during the investigation, prima facie found that the offence punishable under Section 3/8 of the Nursing Homes Act is also made out, which in turn would suggest that police was competent to investigate the case as has been done in accordance with Section 156 of Cr.P.C. The allegations as contained in the First Information Report as well as the material as has been collected during investigation clearly Prima facie suggest that the offence under Section 3/8 of the Nursing Homes Act is also made out. 13. Confronted with the stated position, learned counsel for the accused would contend that the offence punishable under Section 3/8 of Nursing Homes Act is not made out. According to learned counsel running of ultrasound machine at a particular place does not constitute Nursing Home or Clinical Establishment. 13. Confronted with the stated position, learned counsel for the accused would contend that the offence punishable under Section 3/8 of Nursing Homes Act is not made out. According to learned counsel running of ultrasound machine at a particular place does not constitute Nursing Home or Clinical Establishment. It is only in case of Nursing Home or Clinical Establishment registration is necessary and same are to be run in terms of the license granted there for. 14. This contention of the learned counsel prima facie has no substance. The word "Clinical Establishment" as defined in the Nursing Homes Act is quite relevant to be quoted: "(a) "clinical establishment" means a Medical Laboratory, a physio-therapy establishment, a clinical, or an establishment analogous to any of them, by whatever, name called." The wording as employed is wide enough to take into its sweep "a place" where ultrasound machine is operated for detecting the disease. The words "or an establishment analogous to any of them whatever name called" cannot be narrowly interpreted. After all the premises where from ultrasonic for diagnostic purposes is operated is directly linked with clinical establishment and the wording employed in Clause (a) as referred to above admits of the same position. However, to safeguard the interests of the accused, it shall be open for him to prove otherwise during the trial. 15. Next learned counsel contended that operating the ultrasound machine without registration is prohibited only in cases which are covered under the Jammu & Kashmir Preconception and Pre-Natal Sex Selection/Determination (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulation Act") as according to him in terms of Section 2(h)(i) and (k) pre-natal diagnostic procedures and pre-natal test also include ultra-sonography and it is in terms of Section 19 of the said Act registration is necessary, otherwise it is not. 16. This submission has no application because ultra-sonography relatable to pre-conception and pre-natal sex selection/determination require a registration under "the Regulation Act" but otherwise use of ultra-sonography is covered by the Clinical Establishment as defined under the Nursing Homes Act. The acts as alleged against the accused are directly connected with the operation of ultra-sonography for diagnostic purposes relatable to ascertainment of disease. Therefore, in the instant case it is the provisions of Nursing Homes Act which have been violated. 17. The acts as alleged against the accused are directly connected with the operation of ultra-sonography for diagnostic purposes relatable to ascertainment of disease. Therefore, in the instant case it is the provisions of Nursing Homes Act which have been violated. 17. If the argument of learned counsel is taken correct that the operation of ultrasound machine does not require any registration certificate, then every tom, dick and harry will start operation of such machines, resultantly people shall be subjected to un-necessary inconveniences. Diagnosing or ascertaining a disease by a person having no registration to operate such machine is not only impermissible but shall be to the disadvantage of many and will add to the agony of the patients. The Legislature in its wisdom while defining "Clinical Establishments" and "Nursing Homes" have employed the words which are to be interpreted in broader sense. The definition of "Clinical Establishment" has to be interpreted the way it advances the object underlying therein. The wording used as referred to hereinabove clearly take into its sweep the operation and handling of the ultrasound machines. 18. Learned counsel next contended that the offence punishable under Section 419, 468 and 471 RPC are not made out. At this stage to comment on such position is not proper, least said is better because such situation can be better taken care of only during and after trial. Prima facie it is clear from the record that the accused of his own motivated Mst. Raja and Abdul Gani witnesses to undergo ultra-sonography when on way to hospital they were taken to the place where the accused conducted ultra-sonography and charged Rs.900/ from them. 19. In addition, the statement of Dr. R.K. Gupta is indicative of the fact that he has no knowledge about the ultrasound centre at Sunderbani. According to his version without his permission accused is running the ultrasound and his board has been used simply to deceive the people. He has also added that he has never gone to Sunderbani for doing ultrasound. He has further added that no person can do the ultra-sonography without registration from the concerned department. 20. Next learned counsel would contend that neither any loss nor any gain has been caused to any one and also added that it is not known as to what happened to the ultra-sonography as stated to have been conducted. He has further added that no person can do the ultra-sonography without registration from the concerned department. 20. Next learned counsel would contend that neither any loss nor any gain has been caused to any one and also added that it is not known as to what happened to the ultra-sonography as stated to have been conducted. This is a matter which cannot be addressed at this stage. It is a matter to be looked into during trial. 21. Exercise of powers under Section 561-A Cr. P.C has an object to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is true, that in case there is no prospect of trial ending into conviction or when it is clear that the failure of the case is inevitable, then proceedings have to be truncated so as to save the precious time of the Court. It is also correct that framing of the charge is not an ideal formality. Court is required to hear both prosecution and the accused and also to consider the material collected during the investigation and then only to pass the order vis-a-vis framing or otherwise of the charge. 22. Learned trial court has correctly appreciated the material available and while going through the record, the trial court is found to have exercised the power properly. 23. The contention of learned counsel that basically the SHO concerned was inimical to the accused, the raid conducted and then registration of the case is based on animosity, same has also been highlighted before J&K Accountability Commission which in terms of report dated 5.4.2007 has recommended action against the SHO. Said report was also produced for perusal. 24. What could be the effect of such findings/report of the Accountability Commission on the criminal proceedings is correctly made clear by the Accountability Commission itself in paras 25 and 27 of the report which are quoted here-under: "25. Pendency of the criminal case before a court of competent jurisdiction is not going to be influenced by the prima facie findings based on probabilities, that emerge in these proceedings. It is the finding of a civil court alone that has to be followed by a criminal court. Pendency of the criminal case before a court of competent jurisdiction is not going to be influenced by the prima facie findings based on probabilities, that emerge in these proceedings. It is the finding of a civil court alone that has to be followed by a criminal court. The findings recorded in these proceedings by the commission are not binding on criminal courts because, as stated above, the standard of proof required for fastening the guilt by the criminal court on the accused, has be to be beyond any shadow of doubt. Yet again even the finding of the criminal court, as that of acquittal/ conviction, is not going to have any conclusive impact on the enquiries under the Accountability Commission Act. 27. Any observation or remark that will touch the merits of the criminal case indirectly will be without prejudice to the prosecution or the defence in the said case. The trial court will not be influenced and cannot be influenced by the observations/remarks or findings recorded in these proceedings because the standard of proof to be adopted in these proceedings is not of that rigor which is required in criminal trials." 25. It is no more res Integra that the power exercisable under Section 561-A Cr. P.C is permissible rarely in exceptional circumstances i.e. when there is chance of abuse of the process of the Court or there is chance of failure of justice. No such exceptional case has been made out which would warrant quashing of the proceedings. 26. Petition for the stated reasons fails so is dismissed. Trial court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove while conducting the trial and in deciding the matter on its own merits and is expected to expedite the disposal of the case. 27. Subordinate record along with copy of this order be send to the trial court forthwith where the accused shall appear on 6.11.2010.