Tushar Sumantprasad Jani vs State Of Gujarat
2025 Latest Caselaw 2387 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Tushar Sumantprasad Jani vs State Of Gujarat on 8 August, 2025

                                                                                                              NEUTRAL CITATION




                             R/SCR.A/1617/2015                                 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025

                                                                                                              undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                            R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 1617 of 2015

                       ==========================================================
                                                  TUSHAR SUMANTPRASAD JANI
                                                             Versus
                                                    STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR HASIT DAVE(1321) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       MS RV ACHARYA(1124) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                       MR SOHAM JOSHI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
                       No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                                                           Date : 08/08/2025

                                                            ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside proceedings of complaint being CC No.9405 of 2014 pending before learned JMFC, Mehsana.

2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that prime accused is Dr. Bharat Prajapati, who has been acquitted by the learned 4th Addl. CJM, Mehsana in Criminal Case No.9404 of 2014 and for which, he has placed on record judgment. Learned advocate Ms. Acharya for the respondent No.2 could not point out that whether appeal against said judgment has been filed or not.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/1617/2015 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025

undefined

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of Om Multi Specialty Hospital (in short "the Hospital") and it runs multiple specialty hospital with different medical departments. He would further submit that Dr. Bharat Prajapati approached Om Multi Specialty Hospital for space for sonography work and obtained registration certificate in his name vide Annexure F. He would further submit that later on, Dr. Bharat Prajapati left the premises of the Hospital from 30.5.2013. He would refer to Annexure I to submit that the same has been informed to the appropriate authority and further permission has been sought from the appropriate authority before registration. However, it was refused on the ground that the certificate of registration is persona distinct and not in the name of the Hospital. In the background of the aforesaid aspect, learned advocate Mr. Dave referred to the complaint and submitted the allegations against the petitioner to the effect that he has not informed the appropriate authority that Dr. Bharat Prajapati has resigned on 22.6.2012. Letter dated 21.6.2023 is also disclosed that Dr. Bharat Prajapati has resigned from 22.6.2012 and since it was not informed within one year therefrom, the petitioner has committed breach of Rule 13 of the PC and PNDT Act. He would further submit that despite Dr. Bharat Prajapati has resigned on 22.6.2012, form F were continuously filed for the month of July 2012 upto April 2013 from the Hospital, which also indicates that there is breach of offence u/s 3(2) and 3(1)(b) of the Act and Rules made thereunder and sub-residual breach was also found by the appropriate authority. However, he would submit that Rule

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/1617/2015 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025

undefined

13 is in regards to intimation of change in employees, place, address, or installed equipment, but Dr. Bharat Prajapati was not the employee of the Hospital, but he owes independent registration of the clinic in his name and in that circumstances, Rule 13 would not attract.

4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner referring to Form F from the pages 155 onward would submit that all the forms were signed by Dr. Bharat Prajapati, the place of imaging centre was Om Specialty Hospital, but since the registration was in name of Dr. Bharat Prajapati and he has signed all the documents, he cannot be said inaccuracy or any breach of the Rules of the provisions of the PC and PNDT Act. In the aforesaid circumstances, he would submit to allow this petition and to quash and set aside the proceedings of complaint being CC No.9405 of 2014 pending before learned JMFC, Mehsana.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms. Acharya referring to the judgment of learned 4 th Addl. CJM, Mehsana in Criminal Case No.9404 of 2014 would submit that as per the findings of the learned trial Court in the judgment, form F were not filed by Dr. Bharat Prajapati, which indicates and presumption can be raised that it has been filed by the Hospital run by the petitioner. In the aforesaid circumstances, she would submit that the findings of the learned trial Court squarely rules that the petitioner is involved in commission of the offence and therefore, he may be sent for trial.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/1617/2015 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025

undefined

5.1 Upon above submission, learned advocate Ms. Acharya prays to dismiss the petition.

6. Learned APP adopted the arguments made by learned advocate Ms. Acharya and prays to dismiss the petition.

7. At the outset, let refer Rule 13 of the PC and PNDT Act:-

"RULE 13 : Intimation of changes in employees, place or equipment Every Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic shall intimate every change of employee, place, address and equipment installed, to the Appropriate Authority within a period of thirty days of such change."

8. Plain reading of the aforesaid Rule indicates that Every Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic shall intimate every change of employee, place, address and equipment installed, to the Appropriate Authority within a period of thirty days of such change. Annexure F (page 169) to the compilation indicates that name and address of the genetic clinic registration is in name of Dr. Bharat Prajapati, MBBS and the place where he is operating ultra sound clinic is Om Multi Specialty Hospital near Highway, Gozariya, Dist:

Mehsana. The registration is independently in name of Dr. Bharat Prajapati and it is not in name of Om Multi Specialty Hospital. Annexure E (page 153) also indicates that Dr. Bharat Prajapati applied for registration of ultra sound clinic at the place of the Hospital. Referring to page 155, form A indicates that name of the applicant is Dr. Bharat Prajapati

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/1617/2015 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025

undefined

and address is Om Multi Specialty Hospital near Highway, Gozariya, Dist: Mehsana. The aforesaid circumstances strengthened the aspect that registration was made in name of Dr. Bharat Prajapati and not in name of Om Multi Specialty Hospital. Further, what could be noticed that the Hospital is run by Dr. Tushar Jani, who is practicing Homeopathic doctor. Obviously, no registration in his name can be issued by the appropriate authority as he is not certified person to conduct ultra sound or sonography. First letter addressed by Dr. Bharat Prajapati - one of the accused in the criminal case, to the appropriate authority dated 21.6.2013 indicates that he has resigned from the Hospital on 22.6.2012 and he has also filed one affidavit before appropriate authority dated 9.7.2013 stating that he has resigned from the Hospital. He has also stated that due to inadvertent mistake, he could not inform about his resignation within the time. Upon strength of this letter as well as affidavit, appropriate authority believes that the Hospital continued ultra sound clinic even after resignation of Dr. Bharat Prajapati on 22.6.2012 and filed false and improper form F. Therefore, the petitioner has committed the offence under the PC and PNDT Act. Form F on record as recorded herein above is signed by Dr. Bharat Prajapati, which is literally visible. The prosecution or the appropriate authority did not come out with the case that the signature of Dr. Bharat Prajapati on form F is false and fabricated. There is no such allegation stated in the FIR against the petitioner. Therefore, what appears that appropriate authority was guided or misguided by one letter and an affidavit filed by the accused of the Criminal Case. According to this Court, launching of prosecution against Om

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/1617/2015 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025

undefined

Multi Specialty Hospital is totally abuse of process of law. In the aforesaid aspect, if anything can be alleged, it could only be against Dr. Bharat Prajapati and not against Om Multi Specialty Hospital. There is no evidence on record which indicates that Om Multi Specialty Hospital having no registration of ultra sound clinic or sonography clinic, performed the sonography through some other doctor, who is not qualified and issued certificate.

9. In the aforesaid premises, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is futile exercise.

10. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. B.Bhajanlal & ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, the Hon'ble Apex Court summed up the proposition of law, which reads as under:-

"(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations ins the F.I.R. and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the code.

(3) Where, the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same donot disclose the commission of any offence and make out the case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/1617/2015 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025

undefined

constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code.

(5) Whether, the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are sO absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where, there is an express legal bare engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) toi the institution and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

10.1 The findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 1,3 and 7 are attracted in the present case. In view of above, present petition deserves consideration.

11. This Court is quite conscious that power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is extraordinary power and should be used sparingly, as the exercise of such power would scuttle the FIR at the threshold. But, if the FIR fails to make out essential ingredients of the offence, power should be exercised.

12. In the result, the petition is allowed and proceedings of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/1617/2015 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025

undefined

complaint being CC No.9405 of 2014 pending before learned JMFC, Mehsana against the petitioner are hereby quashed and set aside. Direct service is permitted.

(J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE