N RANGABASHYAM Vs. ZEENATH BEGAUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who has been implicated for the alleged offence under Section 406 and 420 IPC, has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings pending in C.C.No.1374 of 2004 on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

(2.) MR.K. Asokan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a leading Consultant Surgeon in Gastroenterologist. It is submitted that the petitioner was also a professor in Madras Medical College as well as in Stanley Medical College and he was also a visiting professor to the Annamalai University. It is submitted that the petitioner is also a Honorary Surgeon to the President of India and Honorary Consultant to Armed Forces Medical Services and he has also specialized in the field of gastroenterology and has been enjoying enviable reputation by virtue of his specialization. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the petitioner has also obtained the reputed B.C.Roy award from the President of India recently in respect of his contribution to the medical field.

(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that there are specific allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint making out a case of cheating and criminal breach of trust. It is contended that the respondent/complainant sought for the production of the case records which were not furnished by the petitioner and that itself will make out a case of criminal breach of trust. Learned Counsel for the respondent would further contend that the respondent/complainant was subjected to undergo number of surgeries mainly on the assurance given by the petitioner that she would be cured fully and as such the respondent has incurred expenses running to several lakhs. It is contended that but for the assurance given by the petitioner the respondent would not have undergone the surgeries in spite of the objection made by her husband. Therefore, the respondent/complainant was induced by the petitioner to spend huge amount for undergoing surgeries performed by the petitioner on the dishonest representation of the petitioner to cure her illness fully and thereby committed the offence of cheating. It is submitted that the points raised by the petitioner are questions of fact and as such the same have to be agitated only at the time of trial.