Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramesh Kumar Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 March, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 597/2022
Ramesh Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, Aged About
57 Years, Ward No. 19, Sardarshahar, Teh. Sardarshahar, Dist.
Churu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Ratangarh, Dist.
Churu.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Pareek
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. K. Bhati, P. P.
Mr. C. R. Choudhary
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
16/03/2022
1. By way of the present misc. petition under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has challenged FIR
No.0537/2021 dated 12.10.2021 registered at Police Station
Sardarshahar, District Churu under Section 34(2) of the National
Medical Commission Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act
of 2019') and Sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Precisely stated, facts germane are that on 20.09.2021, a
complaint came to be filed by one Laxman Singh before Chief
Medical & Health Officer, Churu, in furtherance whereof a
committee was constituted, which gave a report dated 27.11.2020
and thus, an FIR came to be registered against the petitioner.
According to the report, when members of the committee reached
(2 of 5) [CRLMP-597/2022]
at the petitioner's clinic, it was found that a placard of 'Dr. Ramesh
Sharma Ayurved Ratna' was on display.
3. During the inspection by the committee, the petitioner was
not present, but he came after an hour and informed that he was
giving ayurvedic treatment to the patients.
4. When the Investigating Officer went at petitioner's clinic, his
registration certificate was not available and the petitioner stated
that he is having registration No.18967, issued by the Medical
Board. He recorded statements of various persons; one of them
provided a pen-drive containing videography evincing that the
petitioner was treating the patients.
5. On thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer has
found that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner
under the provisions of Section 29 of Rajasthan Medical Act, 1952
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1952') so also under Section
420 of the Code, whereas offence under Section 34(2) of the Act
of 2019 was not found to be made out against the petitioner.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor has placed factual report dated
05.03.2022 for perusal of the Court.
7. Mr. Pareek, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the
FIR in question has been filed by the complainant out of
vengeance, which is false.
8. It was also argued that no offence is made out against the
petitioner, particularly when the petitioner was not found
distributing any medicine to the patient. He added that as a
matter of fact the petitioner has left the profession 10-15 years
ago.
(3 of 5) [CRLMP-597/2022]
9. It was also argued that as per Section 54 of the Act of 2019,
an offence can be registered only on complaint made by the
competent authority and no Court can take cognizance in relation
to any offence under the Act of 2019.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon
perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the
firm view that a prima facie case is made out against the
petitioner.
11. The Investigating Officer has collected enough
material/evidence to show that the petitioner has been treating
patients by ayurvedic system of medicine. The committee had
also reported that there is a display board by which the petitioner
claims himself to be an Ayurvedic Doctor and the same has been
found correct by the Investigating Officer.
12. This Court does not find any substance in petitioner's
contention that at the time when the members of the committee
reached petitioner's clinic, the petitioner was not found
distributing any medicines. Maybe, the petitioner was not available
and he came later (after about an hour), but his own statement
noted in the report dated 27.11.2020 clearly shows that the
petitioner was engaged in treating patients as an Ayurvedic
Doctor.
13. Section 29 of the Act of 1952 levies penalty on an
unregistered person who falsely pretends to be a registered
practitioner or uses any title/words with his name to pretend that
his name is entered in the register of registered practitioner.
14. Therefore, the fact that petitioner was not found distributing
any medicine when the Investigating Officer went for the
investigation has no relevance whatsoever to an offence under
(4 of 5) [CRLMP-597/2022]
Section 29 of the Act of 1952. The mere fact that the petitioner
had displayed the title/words "Ayurveda Ratna" with his name on a
placard is enough to make out a prima facie case under Section 29
of the Act of 1952.
15. Turning to the petitioner's contention that as per Section 54
of the Act of 2019, cognizance cannot be taken by any Court in
the absence of a complaint filed by the competent authority, this
Court is of the view that petitioner's reliance on this provision is
premature and grossly misplaced. Further, in any case, this is a
matter to be decided by the trial Court at the stage of taking
cognizance.
16. It is to be noted that the petitioner was not having any
certificate of registration and his certificate of registration had its
validity only till 1996, whereafter pursuant to judgment of Hon'ble
the Supreme Court dated 01.06.2010, his certificate stood
cancelled.
17. In view of the fact that certificate was cancelled on
01.06.2010, the petitioner could not have indulged in treating the
patients. The said act of petitioner not only amounts to cheating
the patients, but it is also a clear jolt to the system. A person like
the petitioner is playing with the health of innocent persons by
branding himself as an ayurvedic practitioner.
18. This Court does not find any substance in the present misc.
petition, for which the same is dismissed.
19. It may be noted that even at the outset this Court was not
inclined to interfere and had observed that it was not a case of
quashing of FIR, yet learned counsel insisted upon and put forth a
number of arguments and requested the Court to deal with.
Hence, the above findings. The same be treated to be prima-facie
(5 of 5) [CRLMP-597/2022]
finding. The trial Court to do independent assessment of oral and
ocular evidence without being influenced by whatever has been
observed hereinabove.
20. Stay application too stands dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
20-A.Arora/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
