Bombay High Court
Bodi Kashinath Jungari vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 23 January, 2018
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1
wp530.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Criminal Writ Petition No.530 of 2017
Bodi Kashinath Jungari,
Aged 28, Occupation - Doctor,
R/o Sadashiv Nagar,
Wani, Distt. Yavatmal. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Wani, Tah. & Dist. Yavatmal.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
through Medical Superintendent,
Rural Hospital, Wani,
Shri Chandrashekhar S. Khambe. ... Respondents
Shri A.A. Dhawas, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri M.J. Khan, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande & M.G. Giratkar, JJ.
Dated : 23 January, 2018
rd
Oral Judgment (Per R.K. Deshpande, J.) :
1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. The challenge in this petition is to the registration of FIR
vide Crime No.318 of 2017 at Police Station Wani, District
Yavatmal, for the offences punishable under Sections 32 and 33(1)
wp530.17
of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961("the said Act").
By way of amendment, the petitioner is also seeking quashment of
the chargesheet and the entire proceedings in SCC No.1162 of
2017, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a medical
practitioner, having been registered with the Maharashtra Council
of Indian Medicine, Mumbai, a certificate to that effect bearing
No.I-80420-A dated 6-11-2015 is placed on record. In the affidavit
filed by the respondent No.1, it is stated in para 21 that the
petitioner is qualified as BAMS. In view of this, we fail to
understand as to how the provision of Section 33(1) of the said Act
is attracted in the present case to register the offences. Section 32
of the said Act deals with the control of the State Government, and
how it is relevant for the purposes of the present matter, we are
unable to understand. Shri Khan, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, could not convince us on these aspects of the matter.
4. In the affidavit filed by the respondent No.1/State, it is
the stand taken in para 21 as under :
wp530.17
"21. ... A perusal of the complaint would show that, upon
the instruction of the Director of Health Services, raids were
conducted and the petitioner/applicant who is qualified as
B.A.M.S. Allopathic Medicines, was found to be conducted
pre pregnancy and post pregnancy tests in the Maternity
Hospital. It is also found that, there were patients who had
come to the said Hospital for carrying out the pregnancy
and operation. One of such patient namely Sau. Pooja
Rupesh Lengure was pregnant and had come for delivery.
There were various other articles which were found on the
spot also seized from the spot, which are utilized for
treatment of the pregnant women for delivery. ..."
It is the further stand taken in para 22 as under :
"22. ... The contents of the said paragraph pertaining to
point out here that, the petitioner was running a Nursing
Home to carry out the delivery of pregnant women. The
provisions of Section 3 of Bombay Nursing Homes
Registration Act, 1949 prohibits a person to carry on
Nursing Home unless duly registered the application for
registration for Nursing Home is provided in Section 4 of
the said Act. A copy of the relevant extract of Section 3 of
the Bombay Nursing Homes Registration Act, 1949 is
annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-III. The
provisions of Section 6 of the said Act provide for penalty of
non-Registration of the Nursing Home. It could be seen from
the statement recorded by the answering respondent of
Sau. Pooja Rupesh Lengure that applicant was running a
Nursing Home by providing pre pregnancy and post
wp530.17
pregnancy check-up and treatment. ..."
We do not find the aforesaid allegations in the FIR in
question. It is not the action taken under Section 3 of the Bombay
Nursing Homes Registration Act, 1949.
5. In view of above, the prosecution for the offences alleged
is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court. The same cannot,
therefore, be sustained.
6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The FIR
dated 30-3-2017 registered at Police Station Wani, District
Yavatmal, vide Crime No.318 of 2017 for the offences punishable
under Sections 32 and 33(1) of the Maharashtra Medical
Practitioners Act, 1961, is hereby quashed and set aside along with
the chargesheet as well as SCC No.1162 of 2017, pending in the
Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wani, District Yavatmal.
(M.G. Giratkar, J.) (R.K. Deshpande, J.)
Lanjewar, PS
