Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr.Shiv Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 10 August, 2011
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl.Misc.No.M- 77277 of 2006 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl.Misc.No.M- 77277 of 2006 (O&M)
Date of decision: 10.8.2011
Dr.Shiv Kumar ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Sunil Panwar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana.
Ms.Neha Mann, Advocate for
Mr.Salil Bali, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.365 dated 28.8.2006 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) registered at Police Station Sadar Bhiwani.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR in question had been lodged by the cousin brother of the petitioner and respondent No.2 as litigation was pending between the parties. Earlier respondent No.2 had lodged FIR No.218 dated 17.6.1999 against the petitioner under Sections 419, 420, 467, 471 and 198 IPC and Section 15(2) (3) of Indian Medical Council Act, Crl.Misc.No.M- 77277 of 2006 (O&M) 2 1956 at Police Station City Bhiwani and vide judgment dated 17.5.2006 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner had been acquitted in the said case. Now respondent No.2 had again lodged the FIR in question alleging therein that 10+2 examination certificate of the petitioner was forged. The petitioner was being harassed by respondent No.2, who had been filing frivolous complaints against him time and again.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the earlier FIR was registered against the petitioner on the allegations that he was not a qualified doctor, whereas, the present FIR relats to forgery of 10+2 examination certificate. Investigation of the case was still going on.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal.
So far as FIR No.218 dated 17.6.1999 registered at Police Station City Biwani against the petitioner is concerned, the same was on the allegations that the petitioner was not a qualified doctor and, on the basis of the false degrees, was representing himself to be a qualified medical practitioner. In the said case, the petitioner was acquitted by the trial Court on 17.5.2006 (Annexure P-
2) by giving him benefit of doubt.
However, in the present case, the allegation against the petitioner is that he had prepared a forged 10+2 examination certificate in medical subject from All India Board of Education, Delhi Bhawan. Investigation of the case is still going on. In reply filed by the State, it has been averred that the petitioner originally belonged to village Bapoda District Bhiwani. The petitioner had got two Crl.Misc.No.M- 77277 of 2006 (O&M) 3 degrees of M.B.B.S from India and Kazakistan simultaneously. During investigation of the present case, it had been found that 10+2 examination certificate of the petitioner was forged. At the time of applying for service as a Medical Officer in Haryana Government, the petitioner had given his address as H.No.4711, Urban Estate, Jind but at the time of character verification, he got the verification done from Nangloi, Delhi, whereas, he belonged to village Bapoda District Bhiwani. The possibility, at this stage, cannot be ruled out that the certificate might have been forged by the petitioner in village Bapoda District Bhiwani. The said fact can be only determined during investigation. At this stage, it cannot be commented upon that no offence had taken place at Bhiwani as it is the case of prosecution that the petitioner was a resident of village Bapoda District Bhiwani. Hence, at this stage, it would not be appropriate to quash the criminal proceedings at the very threshold. The petitioner would be at liberty to take up all the pleas available to him at the time of framing of charge, if the challan is presented against him after thorough investigation. The fact that the litigation is pending between the petitioner and the complainant does not absolve the petitioner of the offence of forgery of his 10+2 examination certificate, if found to have been committed by him during investigation.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE August 10, 2011 anita