SHARMAS NURSING HOME Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Dr. Sharma's Nursing Home through its Director Dr. P. Sharma has filed this revision petition seeking setting aside of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi dated July 31, 1989 by which-the had allowed the revision petition filed before her against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated June 8, 1987 by which the complaint filed by Prem Shanker had been dismissed and it was held that there was sufficient material to proceed against Dr. Sharma, Director. Dr. Sucheta Datta and M/s. Dr. Sharma's Nursing Home for an offence of cheating punishable under Section 420. Indian Penal Code.

(2.) I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner at the preliminary stage and have gone through the trial Couyrt file as well as the impugned order. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge appears to be well based because taking the allegations made in the complaint and prima facie proved by leading preliminary evidence by the complainat it is evident that a false representation was made by the accused with regard to the availability of facility of air-condtioned room for the patients which facility was not actually available and the complainant because of the said false representation got his brother admitted in the said Nursing Home for an operation and he allegedly had suffered lot of inconvenience for want of air-conditioned facility. The learned Additional Sessions Judge however, did not find any proof prima facie to proceed against. Dr. S.C. Madan tor an offence punishable under Section 336 and 338 or 420 Indian Penal Code .

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that at the most the allegation made in the complaint would show only a civil dispute between the parties as non-providing of certain facilities as assured would not be of any criminal liability. I am afraid it is not possible to continence this contention. It is well settled law that only in case allegations made. in the complaint do not at all make out any offence that the High Court can quash the proceedings. Present is nut such a case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that after the order had been made by the Additional sessons Judge, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate just in routine passed the order of summooning the petitioner and the other two accused without giving any reasons and he had made reference to Ram Lal and Anr. versus Parvinder Singh Monga & Anr. Crl. M.(M) 1136 of 1983 decided on January 13, 1986 by H. C. Goei, J. (1) (As his lordship then was. In this judg- ment a non-speaking order of summoning has been made by the Magistrate and this Court had quashed the order and had remanded the case back to the Magistrate for deciding it afresh. However, in the present case the reasons for a summoning the accused stand elaborately given in the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and thus this Mag strate had no option but to direct the summoning of the accused in the light of the order of the superior Court.