Uttarakhand High Court
Dr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta ` vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 18 January, 2023
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 96 of 2023
(under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.)
Dr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta ` ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. P.C. Petshali, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. along with Mrs. Sonika Khulbe and
Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Brief Holders for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this petition is made to the
charge-sheet dated 21.08.2019 and cognizance order
dated 04.02.2020, passed in Criminal Case No. 230 of
2020, State vs. Dr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta ("the case"), by
the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District
Udham Singh Nagar. It is the case under Sections 420,
467, 468 & 471 IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, the petitioner was owner
of a private hospital. He entered into an agreement with
the health department under the National Health
Authority ("NHA") Scheme to empanel his hospital. But,
the petitioner furnished false information while
empanelling the hospital. He was working at some other
place, but he gave information that he would be available
round the clock in the hospital. The FIR records that
certain forgery was made to claim the money from the
government. After investigation, charge-sheet has been
submitted against the petitioner, on which cognizance
has been taken on 04.02.2020.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that, in fact, informant has now expressed the
desire for not continuing with the criminal prosecution. It
is submitted that the petitioner was fined for making
breach of the conditions, which he has already deposited.
It is also submitted that it is a contractual liability and as
per the terms of the contract, the matter can be referred
to the arbitration.
5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel
would submit that there are specific allegations against
the petitioner. There are serious allegations and the
Investigating Officer found the allegations true.
6. The case against the petitioner is in two parts,
namely (i) he gave false information, so as to secure
empanelment of his hospital. He was not available in the
hospital round the clock, as he claimed and (ii) forgery
was committed in the documents, so as to claim excessive
amount under the contract. The charge-sheet records it
as follows:-
(i) With regard to one Smt. Usha four days
claim was received by the petitioner,
whereas Smt. Usha was admitted in the
hospital for two days only.
(ii) A Naima was admitted in the hospital
twice, but the claim was made, as if she
was admitted in the hospital on three
occasions.
(iii) Patients-Shagun,Shanti, Phuljahan,
Vandana and Ram Singh were shown to
have been referred from Primary Health
Centre, Kelakhera, but there reference
slip does not bear signature of any
employee of Primary Health Centre,
Kelakhera; those patients revealed it to
the Investigating Officer that they were
never admitted in Primary Health Centre,
Kelakhera, They were never treated in the
Primary Health Centre, Kelakhera. They
stated that they, on their own, were
admitted in the hospital of the petitioner.
(iv) The pathology reports did not bear
signature of any doctors or seal.
7. It is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. If prima facie case is made out,
generally no interference is made in these proceedings.
This is a jurisdiction which is much wide, but also guided
by the principles of law, as laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others,
1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
illustrated the circumstances, in which such interference
may be made. In para 102 of the judgment, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed as hereunder:-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of
the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482
of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above,
we give the following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to
prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to
lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and
to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised.
(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 in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying the
FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission
of any offence and make out a case against the
accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not 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 Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR 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 bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to
the institution and continuance of the proceedings
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 mala fide 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."
8. In the instant case, the FIR itself records that
the petitioner committed forgery and gave false
information, so as to get his hospital empanelled under
the scheme of National Health Authority.
9. Insofar as, contractual obligations are
concerned, this argument has less force. A case civil in
nature may also have an element of criminality. It is not a
rule that if any criminal case has element of civil dispute,
such criminal case cannot proceed further. Civil liability
and criminal liability both are distinct. At times, they both
may run together. It is true that if a dispute, which is civil
in nature without any element of criminality, such matter
cannot be proceeded under the criminal law.
10. It is the case of the prosecution that in order to
get his hospital empanelled under the scheme run by
National Health Authority, the petitioner furnished false
information. It is further categorical case of the
prosecution that the petitioner forged the documents, so
as to get excessive claim under the scheme. Prima facie
offence has been made out against the petitioner. There is
no reason to make any interference. Therefore, the
petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of
admission itself
11. The petition is dismissed in-liminie.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
Vacation Judge
18.01.2023
AK
