Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Present : Mr. V.K. Sachdeva, Advocate with Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate, for the petitioner. SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the FIR No.250 dated 11.6.2010, under Sections 353/186 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sarai Khawaja, District Faridabad. The contents of the FIR (Annexure P-1) read as under :- “From Civil Sergeon, Faridabad, To the Commissioner of Police Faridabad Sub:- Regarding lodging of complaint against Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh Prop. M/s Saraswati Hospital, A-61, Ashoka enclave-II, Palla Chowk, near Sector 37, Faridabad for obstruction in government duty and misbehave. On the subject cited above. I have informed by Dr. Savita Yadav, Dy. Civil Sergeon (FW), Faridabad, Crl. Misc. No. M- 37322 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Dr. A.K. Gupta, Dy. Civil Sergeon (TB) Faridabad Dr. Bina Sharma Dy. Civil Sergeon (School) Faridabad that on – they went for inspection of ultra sound of M/s Saraswati Hospital A-61, Ashoka Enclave-II Palla Chowk, Near Sector -37, Faridabad as per the decision of the advisory Committee under the PC and PNDT Act and order No. PNDT/FBD/2010/797/801 Dt.28-5-10. When the aforesaid officers reached at M/s Saraswati A-61 Ashoka Enclave-II Palla Chowk Near Sector 37 Faridabad and intimated the staff on duty regarding inspection of ultrasound machine and call the concerned doctors. The staff on duty contacted Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh Prop. M/s Saraswati Hospital after telephonic conversation with Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh the staff on duty told the inspecting team that they received instructions from the Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh that the team may not be allowed to enter in the premises of the Hospital and the team be shunted out from the premises and accordingly the staff on duty obstructed the staff from entering into the premises and also misbehaved with the inspecting team. Therefore, in view of the above submissions case may be registered against Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh Prop. M/s Saraswati Hospital, A-61, Ashoka Enclave-II Palla Chowk, Near Sector 37, Faridabad for obstruction in government duty and he may be punished as per law. Sd/- Dr. Ravinder Sharma, Civil Sergeon, Faridabad.” After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal , , 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under :- Crl. Misc. No. M- 37322 of 2010 (O&M) 3 “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd Crl. Misc. No. M- 37322 of 2010 (O&M) 4 and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” A perusal of the FIR reveals that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner to the effect that he had instructed his staff not to allow the inspecting team of doctors to enter his premises and had further instructed his staff that the team be shunted out from the premises. Thus, the staff which was on duty had obstructed the inspecting team from Crl. Misc. No. M- 37322 of 2010 (O&M) 5 entering the premises and had also misbehaved with the inspecting team on the instruction of the petitioner. In these circumstances, it would not be just and expedient or in the interest of justice to scuttle the criminal proceedings at the very threshold. Dismissed. December 20, 2010 Anand (SABINA) JUDGE