Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1459 (PNJ)

Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana

2012-10-11

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.: - Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.134 dated 09.05.2006, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B, IPC, registered at Police Station, Narnaund; the order for framing charges; the charges dated 17.04.2010 framed by the learned trial court, and the judgment dated 26.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, and all the consequential proceeding arising therefrom. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Bimla Devi-respondent No.2/complainant lodged a report with the police alleging that she along with her son, Virender Kumar, and daughter, Ishwari Devi, had inherited the land after death of her husband. Smt.Ishwari Devi had died on 24.12.1999 and the land was mutated in the name of her son, Virender Kumar, who was mentally retarded. The accused persons in connivance with the Tehsildar, Narnaund, and the Registry Clerk-Dharminder had got transferred the land owned by her son in their favour. After coming to know of the transaction, Bimla Devi approached the Tehsildar and requested him to cancel the sale deed but in vain. She further alleged that earlier she had submitted an application before the Sub Registrar to the effect that her son, Virender Kumar, was of unsound mind and incapable to handle his property. She had also visited the Civil Hospital, Hisar, for obtaining the disability certificate of her son, Virender Kumar, but Dr. Bhatia refused to issue the same. Then she approached the doctors at PGIMS, Rohtak, and on the basis of the report of a Board of the Civil Surgeons her son was declared to be suffering from mental disorder to the extent of 75% and a certificate in that regard was issued. The accused persons usurped the land of his son on the basis of a false medical certificate. After thorough investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, further investigation was carried out in terms of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C with regard to the involvement of petitioner-Dr.Suresh Kumar in the alleged crime and the supplementary charge-sheet was filed for prosecution of the petitioner. 3. Finding a prima facie case, the learned trial court framed the charges on 17.04.2010, for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471, IPC read with Section 120-B, IPC. 4. 3. Finding a prima facie case, the learned trial court framed the charges on 17.04.2010, for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471, IPC read with Section 120-B, IPC. 4. Feeling aggrieved against the framing of charges, the petitioner filed a criminal revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 26.11.2011 (Annexure P-4). Hence, the present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C for quashing of the orders passed by the learned trial court and that of the learned Revisional Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the FIR and no allegation against him had appeared during the course of investigation, therefore, the learned trial court had wrongly framed the charges against the petitioner. He further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, had also dismissed the criminal revision petition, filed by the petitioner, without assigning good reasons. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the following judgments:- 1. Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1990 CRI.L.J. 2604; 2. Dr. Awtarsingh Vs. State of M.P and others, 1994 CRI.L.J.1575; 3. Sukhar vs. State of UP, (1999) 9 Supreme Court Cases 507; 4. S.N. Palanitkar and others vs. State of Bihar and another, 2001 CRI.L.J. 4765 and 5. Rakesh Kumar Mishra vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 557. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the material available on record. 7. So far as the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that name of the petitioner was not mentioned is concerned, the same is not tenable. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has no connection with the submissions raised by him. Sukhar’s case (supra) deals with the admissibility of the statement recorded by the police in terms of Section 161, Cr.P.C. The same was the issue in Baldev Singh’s case (supra). In the case in hand, the said proposition cannot be applied because the case against the petitioner has not been finally decided so far. The court has to take into consideration the statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C while considering the framing of charges. 8. In Dr. In the case in hand, the said proposition cannot be applied because the case against the petitioner has not been finally decided so far. The court has to take into consideration the statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C while considering the framing of charges. 8. In Dr. Avtarsingh’s case (supra), the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the accused, who allegedly issued a false report, was an Assistant Surgeon, therefore, before taking congizance against him previous sanction of the govt. was necessary. In Rakesh Kumar Mishra’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that official duty implies that the act or omission must have been done by the public servant in the course of his service and it should fall within the scope and range of his official duty. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that the protection enshrined under Section 197, Cr.P.C cannot be extended to criminal activities. 9. In S.N.Palanitkar’s case (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the exercise of inherent power is available to the High Court to give effect to any order under the Cr.P.C, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the end of justice. Where the High Court failed to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C to correct manifest error committed by the Magistrate in issuing process against the accused when the alleged acts against them did not constitute offences for want of satisfying the ingredients of the offences alleged, the order of the High Court refusing to interfere order of the Magistrate to issue process against the accused was liable to be set aside. 10. The certificate dated 27.06.2005 issued by the petitioner as Psychiatric, General Hospital, Hisar, declaring Virender Kumar @ Ravinder to be mentally sound has been collected by the Investigating Agency. As per the report of the Department of Psychiatric, PGIMS, Rohtak, Virender Kumar, was assessed to be 75% mentally disabled vide the report dated 14.09.2005. During the investigation, the petitioner gave in writing to the police that one Jagminder Singh, Clerk in the office of the CMO Hospital, Hisar, had approached him for issuing the certificate on the pretext that the same was required for obtaining a petrol pump outlet and as such, he had issued the certificate declaring Virender Kumar as mentally fit. 11. During the investigation, the petitioner gave in writing to the police that one Jagminder Singh, Clerk in the office of the CMO Hospital, Hisar, had approached him for issuing the certificate on the pretext that the same was required for obtaining a petrol pump outlet and as such, he had issued the certificate declaring Virender Kumar as mentally fit. 11. On the basis of the said certificate issued by the petitioner, his co-accused got the land belonging to Virender Kumar, alienated in their favour. 12. Deliberately issuing a wrong medical certificate by the petitioner cannot be termed to be an act done while discharging the official duties, therefore, the benefit of the protection enshrined in Section 197, Cr.P.C cannot be extended to the petitioner. 13. The contention of learned counsel to the effect that the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the FIR would not be sufficient to quash the proceedings qua him. Suffice it to say that FIR is not an encyclopedia of the entire prosecution case. It is only a document which brings the Investigating Agency into motion. If during the course of investigation, it comes to the knowledge of the Investigating Officer that a person other than the person named in the FIR has committed or involved in the offence then, the said person can be validly nominated as an accused and the investigation can be carried out qua him also. 14. The courts below have assigned good reasons for framing the charges against the accused. Resultantly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed.