GAJANAND AGRAWAL Vs. DR. SANJAY GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been filed by the applicants under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") seeking quashment of complaint and further proceedings pertaining to R.T. No. 12876/2018 pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal in respect of offences punishable under sections 500, 109 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that a complaint in respect of offences punishable under sections 500, 109 and 34 of the IPC was made by the respondent No.1/complainant before the court of JMFC, Bhopal against six persons, including the present applicants. It was stated by the respondent No.1/complainant in the complaint that he is a kidney specialist/doctor and has been running private nursing home under the name "Aradhana Maternity and Kidney Hospital" for past 10-20 years. It was further stated in complaint that the applicant No.1 (Gajanan Agarwal) is Deputy Manager at Malajkhand Copper Products, Balaghat, applicant No.2 (Ram Datt Agarwal) is the father of the applicant No.1 and applicant No.3 (Krishan Agarwal) is the uncle of applicant No.1 and runs a transport business. It was further stated in the complaint by the respondent No.1/complainant that his cousin, Richa Gupta, was married to the applicant No.1 on 9.12.2012; however, certain issues arose in matrimonial relations between the applicant No.1 and Richa Gupta due to demand of dowry. As such, a complaint was made by Richa Gupta against the applicant No.1 and 2 and one Smt. Sudesh Gupta in respect of offences punishable under section 498-A of the IPC and under section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and case against them was registered against them as Criminal Case No. 12614/2014 before the competent Court. It was further stated by the Complainant that he was a witness in the aforesaid case. Due to this, during pendency of aforesaid criminal case, applicant No.1 addressed two letters dated 25.8.15 and 9.11.15 to the respondent No.1/complainant seeking information in respect of treatment given to Richa Gupta. To this, the respondent No.1/complainant responded that no document in that respect were available; against this, an appeal was filed by the applicant No.1 but documents could not be obtained by him. It was further stated by the respondent No.1/complainant that the applicant No.1 made a complaint dated 29.3.16 to Madhya Pradesh Ayurvigyan Parishad regarding the action of the respondent No.1/complainant in supplying aforesaid information. Further, on 16.5.16, the applicant No.1 again made a complaint to Registrar, Madhya Pradesh Ayurvigyan Parishad regarding non supplying of documents. Purusant to the above, Madhya Pradesh Ayurvigyan Parishad asked to the Respondent No.1/Complaint to supply the relevant documents. Further, the applicant No.1 submitted a complaint dated 5.11.15 to the Deputy Secretary, Medical Council of India regarding misleading advertisement and exorbitant fees. It was further stated by the respondent No.1/complainant that no adverse finding was given against him either by Madhya Pradesh Ayurvigyan Parishad or by the Medical Council of India. In spite of the same and in order to cause financial loss to the respondent No.1/complainant, a news item was published on 4.9.16 at the behest of the applicant No.1 that stern warning has been given to "Aradhana Maternity and Kidney Hospital". Further, the applicant again made a complaint dated 30.12.15 against the respondent No.1/complainant under RTI Act to the Divisional Joint Director, Health Services and also made complaint dated 18.1.16 against one Dr. Madhubala Gupta, who is also a witness in Criminal Case No. 12614/2014. In respect of these actions, stern warnings were given to the applicant No.1 by the learned trial court. In spite of above, the applicant made third complaint against the respondent No.1/complainant to the Registrar, Madhya Pradesh Ayurvigyan Parishad seeking his educational qualifications and details pertaining to treatment of Richa Gupta; a complaint in this respect was made before the court of JMFC, Bhopal. It was further stated by the respondent No.1/complainant that the applicant No.1 also sought information regarding nursing home from Labour Commissioner and also made a false complaint to Assistant Commissioner, Central and Service Tax Department. The applicant No.1 again made a complaint on 25.4.17 before Madhya Pradesh Ayurvigyan Parishad against the respondent No.1/complainant stating that he is practising medical profession on the basis of fake degree and is committing irregularities in operating Aradhana Maternity and Kidney Hospital. It was further stated by the respondent No.1/complainant that the applicant No.2 and 3, being family members of the applicant No.1, have helped him in committing the said act. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, cognizance was taken against the applicants by the learned JMFC, Bhopal and Criminal Case No. 12614/2014 was instituted against them in respect of offences punishable under section 500 of the IPC. The learned JMFC inquired the matter and found sufficient ground to take cognizance under Section 500 of the IPC against the applicants/accused.

(3.) On behalf of the applicants, it has been contended that allegations against them are false and baseless. It has further been contended that prima facie, no offence is made out against them in respect of offences punishable under section 500, 109 and 34 of the IPC. It has further been contended that Western Central Railways has terminated services of the respondent No.1/complainant on account of irregularity on 4.2.17 (Annexure A/3) and Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited, Bhopal has also terminated services of the respondent No.1/complainant and Aradhana Maternity and Kidney Hospital (Annexure A/4). It has further been contended that the applicant No.1 made a complaint against the respondent No.1/complainant before Medical Council of M.P. and vide order dated 18.5.17 (Annexure A/6), allegations were proved against him and stern warning was also given. Further, against order dated 18.5.17, an appeal has been filed before the Medical Council of India for enhancement of punishment which is still pending. It has further been contended that Aradhana Maternity and Kidney Hospital was registered for X-ray machine with Atomic Energy Department and it was also not registered with Central Excise and Service Tax Department. Further, news item in Patrika newspaper regarding stern warning given by the Medical Council of M.P. to the respondent No.1/complainant is fair and correct report. It has further been contended that the respondent No.1/complainant was not registered with Medical Council for D.M. and D.N.B. (Nephro) but was practising the same and Aradhana Hospital was running since 1999 without registration with Department of Health Services, Government of M.P. It has further been contended that making lawful complaints to authorities does not make out an offence and since Patrika Newspaper has not been made a party, complaint is liable to be dismissed. It has further been contended that no complaint was made by the applicant No.2 and 3 and as such, no offence is made out against them. In view of the above, it is prayed that this court may invoke its inherent powers under section 482 to quash proceedings in respect of Criminal Case No. 12614/2014 against the applicants.