Jharkhand High Court
Mahendra Kumar Tantubay vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 396 of 2023
Mahendra Kumar Tantubay ...... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Dr. Jujhar Majhi
3. The Jharkhand Council of Medical Registration, Sadar Hospital Campus, Ranchi
4. Dr. Bhagan Hembam, Health Officer
5. Dr. Narendra Sumbrai, Health Officer, Sadar Hospital, Khasmahal, Jamshedpur, East
Singhbhum
6. Dr. Vimlesh Kumar, Health Officer, Sadar Hospital, Khasmahal, Jamshedpur, East
Singhbhum
7. Dr. Sahil Pall, Ex. Civil Surgeon, East Singhbhum, currently posted as Civil Surgeon,
West Singhbhum, Chaibasa ...... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Chayan Sarkar, Advocate
Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Surbhi, A.C. to A.A.G.
04/Dated: 11/08/2023
Heard Mr. Chayan Sarkar, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Ashutosh
Ranjan Kumar for the petitioner and Ms. Surbhi, learned counsel for the State.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of F.I.R. in connection
with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 35 of 2023, registered under sections 336, 420, 467,
468, 471, 120B, 34 of the I.P.C. and under section 41 of Clinical Establishment Act,
2010, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur.
3. The F.I.R. has been lodged by the Assistant Civil Surgeon-cum-
Chief Medical Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur alleging therein the
Occupational Health Centre conducted by Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Ltd., Jojobera
Cement Plant, is not registered under the Clinical Establishment Act however its
labourers are being provided First Aid by doctors and nurses of this Centre for
which no document has been provided.
It was further alleged that the Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Ltd in
connivance with Ram Krishna Health Services and the petitioner is blackmailing
the labourers with their health.
It was further alleged that the MBBS degree of this petitioner is
forged however he is treating the patients. It was further alleged that the
Registration Certificate issued to the petitioner by the West Bengal Medical
Council, on verification by the committee, was found forged.
It was further alleged that the officers of Nuvoco Vistas Corporation
Ltd and Ram Krishan Health Services were known to the fact from earlier that the
petitioner has forged degree. Thus the petitioner on the basis of forged degree has
deceived the patients and put their life in danger.
4. Mr. Chayan Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was running his firm in the name of Ramkrishna Health Services and
was a vendor with Nuvoco Vistas Cement Plant at Jamshedpur from 22.02.2021 to
28.02.2023. He submits that the petitioner is having valid certificate for alternate
medicine inspite of that the present case has been lodged on the false
submission. He submits that the petitioner is protected under section 41 of Clinical
Establishment (Registration & Regulation) Act, 2010. He submits that in view of
section 41 of the said Act the petitioner is required to provide an opportunity of
hearing and thereafter only F.I.R. can be registered. He submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the
petitioner relied in the case of "Aureliano Fernandes V. State of Goa and
others" (2023) SCC Online SC 621 and submits that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in that case interfered on the ground that passing the orders by the
authority concerned violates the principle of natural justice and the present case is
identical in nature.
5. Ms. Surbhi, learned counsel for respondent-State submits that the
clinic of the petitioner was not registered and a three man committee looked
into the document with regard to certificate and the qualification and found
forged one and that is why the F.I.R has been registered. She submits that the
learned court while dealing with the bail application of the petitioner has held that
in the case diary it has come that establishment of the petitioner was not
registered under the Clinical Establishment (Registration & Regulation) Act, 2010.
She submits that no case is made out for quashing the F.I.R.
6. The Court has gone through the contents of F.I.R. and finds that
there are allegations against the petitioner of utilizing the forged certificate. The
Committee also found the name of the petitioner and father name differently in
the clinical establishment certificate thus F.I.R. has been registered. If the
criminality is made out and the ingredients of relevant sections of I.P.C. are made
out the F.I.R can be registered. The principle of natural justice does not come into
play. Further, the contention of the petitioner is fit to be rejected considering that
the firm of the petitioner is not registered under the Clinical Establishment
(Registration & Regulation) Act, 2010. Section 41 of the Act provides monetary
penalty for non-registration. However, such criminal activity under the relevant
sections, the principle of natural justice is not coming in the way of quashing the
F.I.R. So far judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case
of "Aureliano Fernandes" (supra) is concerned, in that case challenge was made
for dismissal of writ petition arising out of order passed by the Executive Council of
Goa University (Disciplinary Authority) accepting the report of standing committee
for prevention of sexual harassment and workplace and imposing upon penalty of
dismissal from service and disqualification from future employment under Rule
11 (IX) of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rule, 1965
and it was duly upheld by the governor, the Chancellor of Goa University being
the appellate authority. In that case the allegations are about sexual harassment
and considering various aspect of the matter including the 'Vishaka Case' the
Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that remedy was required to
provided to the petitioner. In a civil jurisdiction the principle of nature justice is
well settled principle of law and based on that the writ petitions are being
decided. In the case in hand the petitioner has been made an accused under
I.P.C. sections and there is no case of sexual harassment and in that view of the
matter 'Vishaka case' is not coming in the way in deciding the present case.
Thus the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not helping
the petitioner. There is disputed question of fact which has been argued by the
learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. The Clinical Establishments (Registration & Regulation) Act, 2010 has
been enacted to provide for the registration and regulation of clinical
establishments in the country and for matters connected therewith. The enactment
was made to provide for the registration and regulation of clinical establishments
with a view to prescribe minimum standards of facilities and services which may be
provided by them so that mandate of Article 47 of the Constitution for
improvement in public health may be achieved.
8. Right to life includes medical facilities to be provided by duly qualified
doctors with latest equipment. The patients in the private hospitals should not be
overcharged. They should get the medicines at the lowest rates. The rates of
diagnostic tests and other tests shall be reasonable and not exorbitant.
9. Section 11 provides registration of Clinical Establishments, which is
quoted here-in-below:-
"11. Registration for clinical establishments-No person shall run a
clinical establishment unless it has been duly registered in accordance with
the provisions of this Act.
10. The Court is not in a position to quash the F.I.R. and things will be
clear in investigation. No relief can be extended to the petitioner. Accordingly, this
petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.
11. It is open to the petitioner to cooperate in the investigation. The
investigation shall be completed without prejudice to this order in accordance with
law.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/
