ORDER 1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 19.07.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 77/2016, whereby the learned Revisional Court has confirmed the order of framing of charge dated 13.06.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 75/2012. 2. Heard Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1 along with Ms. Muskaan Fatwani and Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondent No. 2/State. 3. Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition is against the entire proceeding drawn in Criminal Case No. 75/2012, pending before the learned JMFC, whereby, the learned trial Court has overreached the jurisdiction by overlooking the orders passed by the High Court and Supreme Court in various writ petitions (quo-warranto, PIL and SLP). The petitioner has also sought for quashing the order dated 19.07.2016, passed in Criminal Revision No. 77/2016, by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur and the order of framing of charge dated 13.06.2016 passed by the learned JMFC in Criminal Case No. 75/2012. He also submits that the petitioner has passed MBBS degree examination in the year 1987 in first division from Indira Gandhi Government Medical College, Nagpur duly recognized and affiliated by Nagpur University, Nagpur (Maharashtra). Thereafter, the petitioner was selected for M.D. (Medicine) and she also passed the examination of M.D. (Medicine) in the year 1991 from Indira Gandhi Government Medical College, Nagpur duly affiliated by the Nagpur University. 4. Mr. Khan further submits that the M.D. postgraduate degree of Nagpur University is included in Schedule-I enacted under India Medical Council Act, 1956. Thereafter, the petitioner was selected for M.D. (Medicine) and she also passed the examination of M.D. (Medicine) in the year 1991 from Indira Gandhi Government Medical College, Nagpur duly affiliated by the Nagpur University. 4. Mr. Khan further submits that the M.D. postgraduate degree of Nagpur University is included in Schedule-I enacted under India Medical Council Act, 1956. Though the degree of M.D. granted by the Nagpur University was duly recognized and affiliated by Medical Council of India as the said degree has been included in Schedule-I of the Act of 1856, yet the department of Health and Family Welfare through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare issued notification dated 27.07.2009 in exercise of power conferred under sub-section 2 of Section 11 of Indian Medical Council Act, 1952 stating inter-alia that the Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine) shall be the recognized medical qualification when granted by Maharashtra University, Nagpur University in respect of the students being trained at Indira Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur on or after 1974. Thereafter, the petitioner was duly registered in Maharashtra Medical Council on 09.01.1989 and necessary registration certificate for additional medical qualification of M.D. was issued by Maharashtra Medical Council. The petitioner after having obtained the M.D. degree from Nagpur University acquired experience after working on the post of lecturer. 5. Mr. Khan also submits that the Guru Ghasidas University issued an advertisement calling upon the applications for the post of reader in the Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS) in which 5 years experience on the post of reader was required. The petitioner duly fulfilling the requisite qualification & experience for the post of reader submitted her candidature. The petitioner’s credentials including experience on the post of reader were duly scrutinized and assessed by the selection committee so constituted and she was interviewed on 17.08.2005 and thereafter, the appointment order dated 23.08.2005 was issued in favour of the petitioner by the Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur, appointing the petitioner to the post of reader. He further submits that at no point of time, any query was raised by the appointing authority i.e. Guru Ghasidas University with regard to qualification or experience of the petitioner for the post of reader. He further submits that at no point of time, any query was raised by the appointing authority i.e. Guru Ghasidas University with regard to qualification or experience of the petitioner for the post of reader. Though no one could be aggrieved against the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Reader, as petitioner was appointed strictly in accordance with law, yet one Shailendra Singh (respondent No. 1 herein) busy body unconnected with the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Reader as he was not a candidate claiming candidature for the post of reader, filed a writ petition before this Court registered as WP (S) No. 5940 of 2006 (Shailendra Singh vs. Dr. Yasmin Khan and Others) seeking a writ of quo-warranto and stating inter-alia that the petitioner was not qualified for the post of reader as she did not have requisite experience of 5 years for the post of reader. This Court was pleased to issue notices into the petitioner and registrar (Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur), as the CIMS was affiliated with Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur. Thereafter, the employer (Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur) has filed the reply in the quo-warranto petition preferred by respondent No. 1 herein. 6. Mr. Khan also submits that in the reply, the employer had specifically mentioned that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Reader is strictly in accordance with the law and the same has been done by the members of selection committee, executive council/appointing authority. The averment made in the writ petition (quo-warranto) is identical to the criminal complaint preferred by respondent No. 1 before the Court of learned JMFC. On 25.01.2008, the petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) sought permission of this Court to withdraw the quowarranto petition, which was allowed and the WP (S) No. 5940/2006 was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 had again preferred a WP (S) No. 3041/2013, by challenging the order dated 23.07.2013 passed by the State Government by confirming the petitioner on the post of Reader and vice-versa ending the probation period on the post of Reader. The WP (S) No. 3041/2013 was actually in the shape of quo-warranto. Again on 13.12.2013, the petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) sought permission of this Court to withdraw the petition, which was also allowed and the WP (S) No. 3041/2013 was dismissed as withdrawn. 7. Mr. The WP (S) No. 3041/2013 was actually in the shape of quo-warranto. Again on 13.12.2013, the petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) sought permission of this Court to withdraw the petition, which was also allowed and the WP (S) No. 3041/2013 was dismissed as withdrawn. 7. Mr. Khan further submits that the respondent No. 1 had again preferred a writ petition (quo-warranto) against the petitioner as WP (S) No. 494/2014. The writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner as WP (S) No. 494/2014, is still pending before this Court for its consideration. Thereafter, the aide of the respondent No. 1 i.e. Dr. Lakhan Singh had preferred a writ petition, being WP (S) No. 134/2015 before this Court challenging the seniority/gradation of the petitioner, which was dismissed on 30.03.2015 being devoid of merit. Thereafter, a public interest litigation as WPPIL No 16/2015 was filed by the aide of respondent No. 1 i.e. Dr. Lakhan Singh against the petitioner before this Court seeking the prayer for issuance of writ of quo-warranto for removing the petitioner from the office of the Reader/Associate Professor (Medicine) of CIMS, Bilaspur. The Coordinate Bench of this Court direct the State authority to file response in the PIL. The State Government had then filed written response by denying the contention averred in the PIL and supporting the degree and requisite qualification of the petitioner herein and the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Reader/Associate Professor (Medicine) is strictly in accordance with rule. Thereafter, on 21.04.2015, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had disposed off the PIL with two directions. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in paragraph 7 of the order dated 21.04.2014 had noticed the personnel vindication and grudge against the petitioner by the aide of respondent No. 1 herein i.e. Dr. Lakhan Singh. He further submits that the petitioner herein has preferred a review application of the order dated 21.04.2015 passed in WPPIL No. 16/2015. The review application received the title and nature of MCC No. 390/2015 and the same was dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 14.05.2015. 8. It is further submitted by Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner preferred two SLP (Civil) Nos. The review application received the title and nature of MCC No. 390/2015 and the same was dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 14.05.2015. 8. It is further submitted by Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner preferred two SLP (Civil) Nos. 22545/2015 and 22546/2015 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the order dated 14.05.2015 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in MCC No. 390/2015 and order dated 21.04.2015 passed in WP PIL No. 16/2015. On 17.08.2015, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted leave on the SLPs and stay order has been passed. He further submits that the framing of charge in respect to Sections 420, 465, 471 of the IPC and Section 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short, ‘Act of 1956’) read with Chhattisgarh Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam 1987 (for short ‘Adhiniyam of 1987’) against the petitioner is maintainable without appreciating the fact and law that the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur is not a Court of expert and when the expert committee of the employer of the petitioner’s employment had already clarified in the writ petition (quo-warranto) before the High Court of Chhattisgarh by way of an affidavit can be disbelieved? The Section 15 of the Act of 1956, reads as under: “15. Right of persons possessing qualification in the Schedule to be enrolled: (1) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, the medical qualifications included in the Schedules shall be sufficient qualification for enrollment on any State Medical register. (2) Save as provided in Section 25, no person other than a medical practitioner enrolled on a State Medical Register: (a) Shall hold office as physician or surgeon or any other office (by whatever designated called) in Government or in any institution maintained by a local or other authority. (b) shall practice medicine in any State. (c) shall be entitled to sign or authenticate a medical or fitness certificate or any other certificate required by any law to be signed or authenticated by a duly qualified medical practitioner. (d) shall be entitled to give evidence at any inquest or in any Court of law as an expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) on any matter relating to medicine. (d) shall be entitled to give evidence at any inquest or in any Court of law as an expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) on any matter relating to medicine. (3) Any person who acts in contravention of any provision of sub-section (2) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.” 9. Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from plain reading of Section 15(2) of the Act of 1956, it given a conclusion that if a medical practitioner unrolled on a any state medical register, then as per Section 15(2)(b) shall practice medicine in any State, meaning thereby the petitioner who is registered to Maharashtra Medical Council on 09.01.1989 has a right to practice in any Stat of India. So, Section 15(3) of the Act of 1956 is not applicable to the petitioner herein. The Section 11 of the Act of 1956, reads as under: “11. Recognition of medical qualifications granted by Universities or medical institutions in India: (1) The medical qualification granted by any University or Medical Institution in India which are included in the first Schedule shall be recognized medical qualification for the purposes of this Act. (2) Any University or Medical Institution in India which grants a medical qualification not included in the first Schedule may apply to the Central Government, to have such qualification recognized, and the Central Government, after consulting the Council, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the first Schedule so as to include such qualification therein, and any such notification may also direct that an entry shall be made in the last column of the first Schedule against such medical qualification only when granted after a specified date.” 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Adhiniyam of 1987 came in force on 01.04.1996 and Section 18 of the Adhiniyam of 1987, reads as under: “18. Appeal against decision of council: (1) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the council under Sections 12, 15 and 16 may prefer an appeal to the State Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Adhiniyam of 1987 came in force on 01.04.1996 and Section 18 of the Adhiniyam of 1987, reads as under: “18. Appeal against decision of council: (1) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the council under Sections 12, 15 and 16 may prefer an appeal to the State Government. (2) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be preferred within three months from the date of the receipt by the party concerned of a copy of such decision and it shall be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed by regulation.” 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No. 1 has suppressed the material fact about the writ petitions filed by him in the complaint filed by him before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur and when the writ petitions pending and disposed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Court of Chhattisgarh has been apprised by the petitioner to the trial Court by exhibiting the orders of the High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court, then also the learned trial Court has misunderstood the judicial propriety and supremacy of hierarchy of higher Court and had passed the order by over reaching the jurisdiction while framing charge against the petitioner and it will be futile exercise for the trial Court to initiate a criminal proceeding against the petitioner and the precious time of the Court can be saved and criminal prosecution any further will be a clear abuse of the process of law, in respect to the petitioner. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1 submits that the petitioner is challenging the order dated 19.07.2016, wherein the learned Revisional Court has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner with the observation that it calls no inference since as per the documents on record prima facie case was made against the petitioner under Section 420, 465, and 471 of the IPC and Section 15(3) of the Act of 1956. He further submits that the instant petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed on the sole count of the fact that the order dated 19.07.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur is a judicial and well reasoned order based upon the findings and reasoning. He further submits that the instant petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed on the sole count of the fact that the order dated 19.07.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur is a judicial and well reasoned order based upon the findings and reasoning. He also submits that the Criminal Case No. 75/2012 is pending against her before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur and also as the charges under Sections 420, 465 and 471 of the IPC and under Section 15(3) of the Act of 1956 have been framed upon the petitioner vide order dated 13.06.2016, and therefore, at this stage the petitioner has remedy to produce all the evidence before the learned trial Court in order to establish her innocence, however, without availing such remedy, the petitioner has filed the instant petition before this Court, which is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 13. Mr. Wankhede further submits that the Hon’ble High Court’s powers to look into materials produced on behalf of or at the instance of the accused for the purpose invoking its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the charges framed, it has to be kept in mind that after the stage of framing charge evidence has to be led on behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge if an accused pleads not guilty to the charge and/or charges and claims to be tried. At the stage of framing of charge the submissions on behalf of the accused have to be confined to the material produced by the investigating agency. The accused will get an opportunity to prove the documents subsequently produced by the prosecution on the order of the Court, but the same cannot be relied upon to reopen the proceedings once charge has been framed or for invocation of the High Court’s power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the same has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Parikh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2008) 10 SCC 109 . 14. Mr. 14. Mr. Wankhede further submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. S.B. Johari and Others, (2002) 2 SCC 57 had set aside the order of the High Court stating that the there was no justifiable reason for the High Court to quash the charge framed by the learned trial Court. He further submits that herein the learned trial Court has already examined the witnesses present and relying upon the documents on record, the learned trial Court has framed the charges against the present petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that the object of examination of the complainant and his witness under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. is to ascertain whether there is prima facie case against the accused person of the offence in the complaint and to prevent the issue of process on a complaint which is either false or vexatious or intended only to harass such a person. He also placed a reliance of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nirmaljit Singh Hoon vs. State of West Bengal and Another, (1973) 3 SCC 753 and A.R. Antulay vs. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and Another, (1984) 2 SCC 500 . 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 16. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, material available on record, also considering that the procedure of appointment on the post of Reader/Associate Professor and genuineness of the degree of the petitioner herein is already subjudice in a writ petition of quo-warranto filed by the respondent No. 1 herein in WP (S) No. 494 of 2015 and two writ petitions of quo-warranto, being WP (S) No. 5940 of 2006 (order dated 25.01.2008, Annexure P/10) and WP (S) No. 3041 of 2013 (order dated 13.12.2023, Annexure P/12) are already dismissed by this Hon’ble Court. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6511 of 2015 and Civil Appeal No. 6512 of 2015, vide common order dated 07.02.2017 have dealt the entire issue relating to the challenge of the petitioner appointment on the post of the Reader/Associate Professor and in Para 3 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court order, the pending quo-warranto writ petition i.e. WP (S) No. 494 of 2015 is discussed at length, which is filed by respondent No. 1 herein. The complaint that has been filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. dealing with the same subject matter, which is pending before this Court in WP (S) No. 494 of 2014 cannot be considered/adjudicated at two Forums and the Criminal Court cannot decide the suitability of a candidate of petitioner’s employment, which is exclusively the job of the expert and the employer of the petitioner, the then Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur had already submitted their reply in the above mentioned writ petitions (service) that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Reader/Assistant Professor has been done strictly in accordance with law by the Selection Committee. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the present proceeding amounts to a malicious prosecution and abuse of the process of the law and it is a fit case warranting interference by this court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, the impugned order dated 19.07.2016 passed in Criminal Revision No. 77/2016 affirming the order dated 13.06.2016 passed in Complaint Case No. 75/2012 and all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. 17. Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed.