Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh Parashar vs Smt. Ragini Pandey on 27 March, 2018
1 MCRC-9375-2017
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH GWALIOR
SB : Justice G.S. Ahluwalia
MCRC No. 9375/2017
Mukesh Parashar
Vs.
Smt. Ragini Pandey and another
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Purushottam Rai, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sushil Goswami, counsel for the respondent No. 1.
Shri Devendra Chaubey, Public Prosecutor for the respondent
No. 2/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing : 22.03.2018
Date of order : 27.03.2018
Whether approved for reporting : Yes
ORDER
(Passed on 27/03/2018) Mundaka Upanishad (3.1.6) goes this way:
1. "Satyameva Jayate Na-anrtam - satyena panthaa vitato devayaanah | Yen-aakramanty-rsayo hyaapta-kaamaa - Yatra tat satyasya paramam nidhaanam ||".
which means:
"Truth alone wins, not untruth. By truth is laid out the divine path, which the seers who are free from desires, reach to the supreme abode of truth".
2. Upon independence of India, Satya Mev Jayate has been adopted as National Motto.
3. Thus, truth always win and not falsehood/untruth. The present case is the glaring example of an attempt made by one of the parties to play fraud on the Court, by preparing false 2 MCRC-9375-2017 evidence, in order to establish his/her innocence. However, the respondent no.1 herself exposed, the attempt made by her to play fraud with the judicial system. Unfortunately, the persons who are in the noble profession of medical science and are Doctors, have also played an active role in preparing false documents. This Court, in spite of every effort, could not take a lenient view in the matter. The situation has touched an alarming height which has to be curbed, otherwise, the guilty persons would continue to succeed in preparing false documents/evidence to prove that the innocent complainants are wrong. On some occasions, a person may succeed in his evil attempt, but one day, the truth would always come to light and only the truth would prevail.
4. In the present case, the applicant no.1 was granted anticipatory bail, by this Court by order dated 10-7-2017, passed in M.Cr.C. No. 7358/2017. The present application has been filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail, on the ground that it has been obtained by relying upon false documents.
5. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that the respondent no.1 filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail in crime No. 455/2017 registered by Police Station Dabra, Distt. Gwalior for offence under Sections 323, 324, 341, 294, 506 and 326 of I.P.C. and later on offence under Section 307 of IPC has been added.
6. It is alleged by the applicant, that on 4-6-2017, at about 5 P.M., the respondent no.1, and her husband Dharmendra, damaged the foundation of his house. When the applicant was going to the police station, for lodging the F.I.R., at about 5 P.M., the respondent no.1 and her husband along with two more persons stopped the applicant, near the Pitambara Milk Dairy. They started abusing the applicant and also threatened him to kill. When it was objected by the applicant, then the 3 MCRC-9375-2017 husband of the respondent no.1, namely Dharmendra, gave repeated knife blows, causing multiple injuries on the vital part of his body. The applicant and other co-accused persons, also assaulted the applicant by fists and blows.
7. The respondent no.1, filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail, before the Sessions Court, Gwalior. In the application for grant of anticipatory bail which was filed by the respondent no.1, before the Sessions Court, it was specifically stated that on 4-6-2017, in the morning, the respondent no. 1 was admitted in the hospital and She was discharged from the Hospital on 5-6-2017. A medical certificate/discharge ticket, issued by Dr. Virendra Goud, posted in Civil Hospital, Dabra, Distt. Gwalior, was also annexed with the bail application. The bail application was supported by an affidavit given by Pavan Pandey, son of Radheshyam Pandey, resident of Shikshak Colony, Dabra, Distt. Gwalior, who claimed himself to be the nephew of the respondent no.1. However, in view of the specific allegations made against the respondent no.1, the Sessions Court, rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail.
8. The respondent no.1, thereafter, filed an application before this Court, for grant of anticipatory bail. In the bail application, it was mentioned as under :
"6-2 ;g fd] ?kVuk fnukad 4-6-17 dks 'kke ds 5 cts dh crkbZ xbZ gS tcfd mDr ?kVuk fnukad dk vkosfndk Mcjk vLirky es byktjr Fkh ?kVukLFky ij mifLFkr ugha FkhA"
9. Along with the application for grant of anticipatory bail, the certificate issued by Dr. Virendra Goud was also annexed which had certified that the respondent no.1 was admitted in the hospital on 4-6-2017, at 09:00 in the morning and was discharged from the hospital on 5-6-2017.
10. The application for grant of anticipatory bail, filed by the 4 MCRC-9375-2017 respondent no.1 was allowed by this Court by order dated 10-7- 2017, passed in M.Cr.C. No. 7358/2017 and the respondent no.1 was granted anticipatory bail.
11. The present application for cancellation of anticipatory bail has been filed on the solitary ground that the certificate issued to Dr. Virendra Goud, Civil Hospital, Dabra, Distt. Gwalior is a false certificate and the respondent no.1 was never admitted in the Hospital and had in fact participated in the commission of offence. It is alleged that on 4-6-2017, the respondent no.1 had in fact gone to the police station, Dabra, Distt. Gwalior and in the CCTV footage of the concerning Police Station, it was clearly seen, that the respondent no.1, at about 18:07, was in the Police Station Dabra, who had gone in order to lodge a false report against the applicant.
12. The respondent no.1 filed her reply and denied the allegations. It was denied that the medical documents are false documents. It was alleged that these documents are original documents which are not forged documents. No report has been given by any authority to the effect, that the medical certificate, relied upon by the respondent no.1 is a forged or false document. It was also denied that it is not proved from the CCTV footage that the lady seen in the picture is the respondent no.1. The photographs are also not supported by a certificate, as required under Section 65B of Evidence Act. Pawan Pandey had not given any false affidavit in the Court. It was also alleged that since, the applicant is an advocate, therefore, taking advantage of his association with the political persons, a false case has been registered against the respondent no.1. The applicant had not sustained any injury. The respondent no.1 had made an application for examination of the applicant by a Medical Board. The applicant had not remained in the hospital, even for a hour. A civil suit in respect 5 MCRC-9375-2017 of the disputed plot is already pending. This Court has granted anticipatory bail to the respondent no.1 after considering the merits of the case. The documents filed along with the application for grant of anticipatory bail were made available by the respondent no.1 and the respondent no. 1 after reading and understanding the contents of the application, had given the affidavit and nothing is false. Thus, a prayer was made to reject the application for cancellation of bail.
13. The State also filed its reply and submitted that the applicant had lodged a F.I.R. alleging that he is the owner of the plot situated on Gainda Road. The foundation laid by the applicant was damaged/uprooted by the respondent no.1 and her husband and thus, when he was coming to the police station and reached near Pitambara Milk Dairy, he was stopped by the respondent no.1, husband and other two persons, extended the threat to his life and when it was objected by the applicant, then the husband of the respondent no.1 caused multiple knife injuries to the applicant and he was also beaten by fists and blows. The police initially registered the offence under Section 324,323,294,341, 506,34 of I.P.C. and later on offence under Section 326,307 of I.P.C. has been added. Statement of Dr. Virendra Gaud have been recorded in which he has stated that the respondent no.1 was admitted in the hospital with the complaint of loose motion and vomitting and She was admitted in the hospital and was given drip. It cannot be said with authenticity that whether the said lady was the respondent no.1 or not, as the ID proof the patients are never taken at the time of their admission. That lady had left the hospital after the drip was given and thereafter never came back to the hospital. As per the hospital record, the name of that lady is mentioned as Rani wife of Satyendra Rawat at serial No. 46417. So far as the CCTV footage of the police 6 MCRC-9375-2017 station is concerned, it was said that the life of the recording of CCTV footage of the police station is only 15 days and thereafter, the recording automatically gets deleted. At the relevant time, the CCTV footage was made available to the applicant, however, it is not possible to identify that whether the lady seen in the photograph is the respondent no.1 or not?
14. The applicant thereafter, filed a rejoinder to the reply filed by the parties. It was alleged that he has made a complaint against the Dr. Virendra Gaud, respondent no.1, Dharmendra Pandey (husband of respondent no.1), Radhey Pandey, Vivek Pandey and Pawan Pandey, before the Police Station Dabra on 30-10-2017. On this complaint, the police has started an enquiry and also submitted that the applicant had made the CCTV footage and the coloured photographs of the respondent no.1, available to the police.
15. The respondent no.1, filed his additional reply to the rejoinder and objected that under whose orders, the police has recorded the statements ? It was also objected that under what provisions of law, the copies of the statements recorded by the police have been provided to the applicant. It was also objected that the certificate given by the applicant under Section 65B of Evidence is contrary to law and thus, the applicant is liable to be prosecuted.
16. The State has filed additional documents along with the enquiry report. According to this enquiry report, Dr. Virendra Goud, had prepared a false certificate showing that the respondent no.1 was admitted in the hospital from 4-6-2017 to 5-6-2017 and accordingly, it has been found that the respondent no.1 along with her husband Dharmendra, has got a false certificate prepared from Dr. Virendra Gaud, so that they may obtain anticipatory bail in the crime registered by Police Station Dabra, Distt. Gwalior. The State has also placed, all 7 MCRC-9375-2017 the documents on record, in support of the report. Accordingly, it has been opined that prima facie an offence punishable under Section 420,465,466,468,120B of I.P.C. has been made out and a recommendation has been made to S.P., Gwalior.
17. It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant, that the respondent no.1 in order to show her innocence, has got a false document prepared in connivance with Dr. Virendra Gaud, and the said false certificate has been filed in the judicial proceedings, knowing fully well that the said certificate is a false document. Dharmendra, the co-accused, who is the husband of the respondent no.1 had played an important role and Dr. Virendra Gaud, who was not even on duty on 4-6-2017, had prepared a false medical certificate to the effect that the respondent no. 1 had remained admitted in the Govt. Civil Hospital from 4-6-2017 till 5-6-2017. Thus, it is submitted that not only, the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent no.1 is liable to be cancelled, but proceedings may also be initiated against the respondent no.1, Dharmendra and Dr. Virendra Gaud for Contempt of Court, under Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
18. Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the respondent no.1, that the certificate issued by Dr. Virendra Gaud is not a forged document, as Dr. Virendra Gaud, has admitted that he had issued the said document.
19. When a specific question was put to the Counsel for the respondent no.1 that, whether the respondent no.1 had remained admitted in the Civil Hospital, Dabra, Distt. Gwalior or not, then an evasive reply was given. Initially, it was replied that no specific reply has been given by the respondent no.1 in this regard in the written reply filed by her as no such specific averment has been made by the applicant. Again when a specific question was put that whether the respondent no.1 had 8 MCRC-9375-2017 remained admitted in the Hospital from 9 A.M. on 4-6-2017 till 5-6-2017 or not, then again an evasive reply was given that as per the certificate issued by Dr. Virendra, the respondent no.1 appears to have remained admitted in the Hospital.
20. The State has come up with a specific finding that the medical certificate issued by Dr. Virendra Gaud is a false certificate and therefore, action has been proposed against the respondent no.1, her husband Dharmendra and Dr. Virendra Gaud.
21. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
22. This case depicts a very sorry state of affairs, where the Doctor who is engaged in a noble profession of saving the lives of patients and is posted in the Govt. Civil Hospital, appears to have given a false certificate knowing fully well, that the said certificate shall be used as a genuine document in a judicial proceedings.
23. Dr. Virendra Gaud, had issued a prescription in favor of the respondent no.1 as an Outdoor patient on 4-6-2017 and its O.P.D. No. is 46417. The applicant has produced the register of the details of the out door Patients, according to which, at serial no. 46417, the name of the patient is mentioned as Rani wife of Satyendra Singh who had come to the Hospital with the complaint of stomachache. From the O.P.D. Register of 4-6- 2017, it appears that 40 Patients were attended. The name of Rani is at serial no. 36 and the name of the last patient is at serial no. 40. In the discharge ticket also, the serial number of the patient is mentioned as 46417. However in the prescription as well as the discharge ticket, the name of the patient has been mentioned as Ragini (respondent no.1) whereas the name of the patient at serial no. 46417 in the Hospital Register is Rani.
24. The Police has recorded the statement of Dr. Virendra 9 MCRC-9375-2017 Gaud, who has admitted that he was not on duty either on 3-6- 2017 or on 4-6-2017. However, has tried to say that as Dr. D.R. Sagar was on Emergency Duty and as he was getting late, therefore, Dr. Virendra Gaud, had performed Emergency Duty. It was further stated by him, that he had admitted the lady at around 9 A.M. for the purposes of giving drip and after 1 hour, the said lady left the hospital without informing anybody and after 2 days, her husband had come to the hospital for collecting the discharge ticket. Thus, according to Dr. Virendra Gaud, the lady which was admitted by him in the Hospital for giving drip had left the hospital after about a hour on 4-6-2017 itself, whereas the discharge ticket prepared by him shows that the respondent no.1 was admitted in the hospital on 4-6-2017 at around 9 A.M. and was discharged on 5-6-2017. Thus, the certificate issued by Dr. Virendra Gaud was false as per his own version. However, the statement of Dr. Virendra Gaud is also not correct in the light of the other evidence on record.
25. Lakhan Singh has stated that his duty was from 8 P.M. to 12 A.M. in the night. At about 9 P.M., one lady known as Rani had come with the complaint of Stomachache and an entry was made in the O.P.D. Register at serial no. 46417 and the Doctor on duty had attended her. Thus, it is clear that Patient at serial no. 46417 had come to the Hospital at 9 P.M., whereas Dr. Virendra Gaud, has stated that the respondent no.1 had come to the Hospital at 9 A.M. The statement of Lakhan Singh, appears to be more correct, because, as already mentioned, total 40 patients were attended on 4-6-2017 and the patient No. 46417 is at serial no. 36.
26. Rani has been examined by the police, who has stated that She had gone to the Hospital at about 8-9 P.M., and She was treated by the Doctor and She was discharged on the same day at about 10-10:30 P.M. Itself.
10 MCRC-9375-2017
27. The Statement of the respondent no.1 was recorded, who has stated that She was admitted in the Hospital on 4-6-2017 at about 09:00 AM. At about 06:00 PM, she came to know, that some dispute has taken place between her husband and the applicant, therefore, from the Hospital, she directly went to the Police Station Dabra, where the report of her husband was not written. However, she could not explain as to why her name is not mentioned in the O.P.D. Register at Serial No. 46417. One thing is clear. The respondent no.1, herself has admitted that She had left the hospital on 4-6-2017 itself, then Dr. Virendra Goud, could not have issued a discharge ticket showing that the respondent no.1 was discharged from the Hospital on 5-6- 2017.
28. The respondent no.1 has filed a copy of the plaint along with her reply, in order to show that a civil dispute is already pending between her husband and the applicant in respect of the disputed plot. In Para 4 of the plaint, the husband of the respondent no.1, himself has pleaded that on 4-6-2017, at about 02:00 PM, the applicant started quarrelling with him and had abused the plaintiff and his wife. Thus, according to the plaint, the respondent no.1 was in the house at about 02:00 PM.
29. The police has also given a finding that the lady visible in the CCTV footage of the Police Station is the respondent no.1. Thus, it is clear that the respondent no.1 had gone to the Police Station Dabra at about 18:07 and was in the Police Station at least till 18:38.
30. Thus, the averment made by the respondent no.1 in the application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court as well as before this Court was wrong and the medical certificate which has been filed is also false, and thus, it is clear that the respondent no.1 has tried to play fraud on the Court 11 MCRC-9375-2017 and had succeeded in obtaining the order of anticipatory bail from the High Court.
31. This practice of obtaining false certificates and filing the same in the Judicial Proceedings, with an intention to obtain a favourable order, cannot be tolerated and has to be dealt with firmly.
32. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion, that the respondent no.1 has obtained the order dated 10-7-2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 7358/2017, by playing fraud on the Court, and thus, the order dated 10-7-2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 7358/2017 by this Court is hereby recalled.
33. The respondent no.1 is directed to immediately surrender before the Trial Court.
34. Accordingly, the application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent no.1 by this Court, by order dated 10-7-2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 7358 of 2017 is hereby Allowed.
35. Now the next question is that whether any further action is required to be taken against the respondent no.1, Dharmendra and Dr. Virendra Gaud or not?
36. The Public Prosecutor, has submitted that in view of the findings given by the police as well as the evidence collected by the Police, a strict departmental action as well as under
Criminal Law, shall be taken against Dr. Virendra Gaud and other co-accused person. This Court hopes and believes that the undertaking given by the Public Prosecutor will be honored by the Department in its letter and spirit.
37. Accordingly, this application is finally disposed of with hope that the authorities would rise to the occasion and would take necessary steps in the matter against the person guilty of preparing false evidence as well as using the same as a genuine document in the Court of Law.
12 MCRC-9375-2017
38. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior as well as to the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Gwalior for taking necessary action in the matter.
39. Both the officers are directed to inform the Principal Registrar of this Court about the action taken by them, within a period of one month from today.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Abhi Digitally signed by ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Date: 2018.03.27 17:39:53 +05'30'