Dr. Raman Kapoor vs State & Another
2000 Latest Caselaw 877 Del

ORDER

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the impugned order dated 16.12.1998 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate disposing of the complaint of Respondent No.2, Nand Kishore Grover, bearing No. 119/1 of 1998. The facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under:

2. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is a medical doctor and possesses the degree of M.B.B.S. obtained from the University of Medical Sciences at New Delhi in the year 1979. He has specialised in the field of Acupuncture and other alternate medical system. It is mentioned that the petitioner is engaged in philanthropic work for the benefit of humanity.

3. According to the petitioner, respondent No.2, Nand Kishore Grover attended his clinic from 11.1.1994 to 14.1.1994 for the treatment of chronic irritable bowel syndrome. It is mentioned that respondent No. 2 was explained the treatment that could be accorded to him and for the purpose of acquainting him with the minute details of the same, he was handed over the book, namely, "A Guide to Acupuncture and Tissue Cleansing System".

4. Respondent No.2 on his request was given Colema treatment for a period of seven days from 17.1.1994 to 24.1.1994. A photocopy of the detailed programme was given to respondent No.2. Respondent No. 2 paid Rs.4,000/= for the seven days programme of Colema. It is also mentioned in the petition that respondent No. 2 who was a chronic patient, was relieved to a large extent by the said Colema treatment. It is also incorporated in the petition that on 29.1.1994, respondent No. 2 came to the clinic of the petitioner and demanded a receipt for the payment made by him. Immediately, the petitioner issued him a receipt for Rs.4,000/= towards the amount received by him for giving Colema Treatment. The receipt issued on 29.1.1994 reads as under:

"This is to certify that Mr. Nand Kishore Grover has taken Colema Treatment for seven days and has paid Rs.4,000/= as treatment charges for the programme."

Respondent No.2 was aware of the other fields of specialization of the petitioner, and he enquired about the other treatments which could provide him an enhanced degree of relief. The petitioner explained that he could derive a further relief in case he underwent Acupuncture treatment. Respondent No. 2 also opted for the Acupuncture treatment. It was explained to him that the treatment would be for 30 days duration. It was also explained to respondent No. 2 that he would be required to pay Rs.400/= towards the cost of needles required to administer the said treatment and a further fee of Rs.100/- per sitting.

5. The petitioner began treating respondent No. 2 with the treatment of Acupuncture on 25.1.1994 and the process continued till 28.1.1994. The petitioner asked respondent No. 2 to deposit Rs.700/= being the charges for the needles and three sittings of Acupuncture treatment already undertaken by him.

6. Respondent No. 2 had sent a legal notice on 3.2.1994 to the petitioner. Reply of the same was sent by the petitioner on 24.02.1994. Thereafter respondent No. 2 also filed a complaint against the petitioner in the Consumer Forum, local police and before the Medical Council of India (MCI). It may be pertinent to mention that the local police after thorough investigations, concluded that no action is required from their side and it was a matter of a purely civil nature.

7. When respondent No. 2 did not succeed before any forum, and eventually, after a lapse of more than four years on 11.3.1998, filed a complaint against the petitioner and his wife Dr. (Mrs.) Sunita Kapoor under section 418/420/384/354/34 IPC. The Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 16.12.1998 summoned the petitioner under Section 420 IPC for 6.3.1999. The learned M.M. in his order dated 16.12.1998 has stated as under:

"From the averments of the complaint; the deposition of CW-1 and 2 and the documents on record, there appears vivid and specific allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation by accused No. 1 to the complainant inducing him to part with the cash amount of Rs.4,100/= promising him a composite acupuncture treatment which in fact, he did not intend to do or did not do it."

8. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate approached this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations/averments of the complaint even if accepted as correct, then also no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out against the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner provided a comprehensive treatment for seven days for colema treatment programme to respondent No. 2 and for the entire programme of seven days, he charged Rs.4,000/= and issued the receipt for the same. It is pertinent to mention that even before starting the treatment, the petitioner explained minute details of the entire programme to respondent No. 2 and gave a printed programme for minute details. He also indicated that Rs.4,000/- would be charged for the entire treatment for a week. The receipt issued, clearly demonstrates that the amount of Rs.4,000/= was charged for seven days' treatment for Colema programme. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate has erroneously mentioned that this amount was charged from respondent No. 2, promising him a complete Acupuncture treatment. This is factually incorrect and wrong.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 2 in the proceedings before the Consumer Forum has filed a photocopy of the Colema or Intestine Cleansing Programme. This Court called for the record of the Consumer Forum and according to this Programme, detailed instructions have been enumerated regarding diet and medicines.

10. In pursuance to the court notice respondent No.2 filed a comprehensive reply. In the reply, it is incorporated that this petition is an abuse of the process of law. It is also incorporated that the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is based on record and evidence led before him. It is also incorporated that the petitioner has not undertaken education/training from any recognised or authorised institution or college. It is also mentioned that the petitioner is not registered for practicing Acupuncture. It may be pertinent to mention that respondent No. 2 has also filed a complaint before the Medical Council of India complaining that the petitioner is openly cheating the public and playing with the lives of the innocent people. It is also incorporated that the petitioner's wife Dr.(Mrs.) Sunita Kapoor is also guilty of the same offence for which the petitioner has been charged.

11. Rejoinder to the reply has been filed on behalf of the petitioner in which all the averments incorporated in which all the averments incorporated in the reply have been denied. It is reiterated that the petitioner is a registered Doctor with the Medical Council of India.

12. In support of the contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court, i.e., Ashok Chaturvedi & Others Vs Shitul H Chanchani & Another; . The Court observed in the case that:

"Allowing the criminal proceeding to continue even where the allegations in the complaint petition do not make out any offence would tantamount to an abuse of the process of court, and therefore, there cannot be any dispute that in such case power under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised."

The Court in the said case quashed not only the cognizance taken by the Magistrate of the offences as against the seven appellants but also against the said two officers of the company and the petition was allowed.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on another judgment of the Supreme Court, i.e., Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Others Vs Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Others; . The Court observed in this case that "when the prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverter allegations as made in the complaint prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appeal in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage". In this case also the proceedings before the trial court were quashed by the Apex Court.

14. I have carefully perused the petition, documents on record and cases cited at the bar. There is also no explanation of the delay of four years in lodging the complaint.

15. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, the complaint filed against the petitioner is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. I accordingly dismiss the complaint. Consequently, the impugned order and all proceedings taken in pursuance of the complaint are set aside and this petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.