Dr. Pradeep Adlakha v. State of Uttaranchal & Another

The background facts of the controversy are that respondent no. 2 Kamar Singh once became injured in an accident on 12.2.2004. He got himself admitted in Maharaja Agersen Hospital, Rudrapur for treatment, wherein Dr. Pradeep Adlakha, a Post-Graduate Orthopedic Doctor, was employed to provide treatment to in-house patients. The said hospital is being run by a charitable trust. In the hospital, Kamar Singh was medically examined by the applicant, who found multiple fractures in his body, as is manifest from Annexure 6, filed with the petition. Kamar Singh allegedly paid hefty amount to the hospital and got 2 treatment from there under the immediate supervision of the applicant Dr. Pradeep Adlakha. Ultimately, he was discharged from the hospital.

#3. After his discharge, Kamar Singh, for his further satisfaction, again got himself medically examined at Bareilly by Dr. Anil Agarwal, who informed him that he was not properly treated by Dr. Pradeep Adlakha and also told him that his hip bone was not properly functioning and it would never function normally. On this, Kamar Singh returned and met to Dr. Pradeep Adlakha on 29.7.2005 and complained to the applicant about his grievances. The applicant did not pay any heed. Rather, he allegedly snatched the original x-ray plate and medical report from Kamar Singh and also slapped and beat him with fists. The applicant also threatened to kill him. Kamar Singh had gone to meet the applicant along with his companion Mangat Singh. With these averments, he instituted a complaint on 20.10.2005.

#4. The complainant got himself examined under Section 200 CrPC, while Mangat Singh was examined under Section 202 CrPC. Thereafter, learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order of cognizance, as stated above.

#5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

#6. Learned Counsel for the complainant respondent argued that the present dispute involves factual questions and, therefore, this Court should not interfere with the proceedings pending before the court below. In support of his argument, the learned Counsel relied upon a precedent of Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court rendered in case of R.P. Kapur v. 3 State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1960 SC 866, wherein the Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court, while elaborating the scope of Section 561-A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (analogous to present Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), has observed that (cid:147)High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of the trial magistrate, and ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke the High Court(cid:146)s inherent jurisdiction and contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the accusation made against the accused would not be sustained.(cid:148)

#7. Learned Counsel for the complainant further placed his reliance upon an authority of Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court delivered in case of K. Ashoka v. N.L. Chandrashekar & Others, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 199, wherein it has been held as under: (cid:147)All that is to be seen is whether the necessary allegations exist in the complaint to bring the case within Section 415. We are clearly of the view that the allegations in the complaint constitute such an offence. We are not concerned with the proof of such allegations or ultimate outcome of trial at this stage.(cid:148)

#8. Having utmost regard to the views expressed by the Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court in both the aforesaid verdicts, in humble opinion of this Court, these are not applicable in the present case as it is the settled principle of law that where, on the face of the record, appears to be gross abuse of the process of law, then this Court can interfere with the same under its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC in order to prevent any possible miscarriage of justice. In the first precedent of R.P. Kapur(cid:146)s case, the petition was filed 4 for quashing of the chargesheet which was submitted under Section 173 CrPC after due investigation by Investigating Officer, whereas in the instant case, a very shallow complaint, full of whimsical allegations, entirely based on the caprices of complainant Kamar Singh (patient) is under challenge. It appears that the impugned complaint has been instituted only against one Doctor i.e. the present applicant, a Post-Graduate Orthopedic Surgeon, to harass and pester him in order to recover the money, which the said charitable trust hospital charged from the complainant in lieu of his treatment.

#9. Even in the second precedent of K. Ashoka case, the Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court has nowhere given green signal to frivolous complaints like the present one. If such a complaint is not nipped in the bud, then any disruptive and antisocial person can make merry, and will file any type of false complaint against any civilized person, who will be forced to face the rigmarole of a trial. It will lead to complete anarchy and chaos in the society.

#10. As stated above, in the present case unfounded and unbelievable allegations have been made against the applicant, which do not inspire even the least confidence. As such, the impugned proceedings against the applicant cannot be allowed to proceed further.

#11. For the reasons recorded above, the petition has merit and deserves to be allowed. Petition is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order of cognizance dated

26.10.2005, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar and the entire proceeding of Criminal Complaint Case No. 797/2005, Kamar Singh v. Dr. Pradeep Adlakha, are hereby quashed. 5

#12. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned accordingly.

15.3.2012 Prabodh (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.)