Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Alka Sehgal vs Dr. Gurjit Kaur on 15 March, 2013
Author: K.C.Puri
Bench: K.C.Puri
Criminal Misc. No. M. 3017 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M. 3017 of 2012
Decided on 15 .03.2013.
Dr. Alka Sehgal
... Petitioner
versus
Dr. Gurjit Kaur
.... Respondent
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI
Present : Mr. J.S.Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sukant Gupta, Addl. PP, for U.T.
Ms. Rita Kohli, Advocate for the respondent
K.C.PURI, J.
Dr. Alka Sehgal has directed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (in short - Cr.P.C.) for quashing of the Criminal Complaint No.31965 of 2010 dated 27.10.2010, under Sections 499, 500, 501 IPC, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1), summoning dated 03.01.2012 (Annexure P-2), and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The case of the complainant is that she is an Associate professor in the Department of Physiology, Consultant Incharge, Genetic Criminal Misc. No. M. 3017 of 2012 2 Centre, Government Medical College and Hospital Sector 32 Chandigarh. It has been alleged by the complainant that she has done M.Sc. (Hons School) and Ph.D from Department of Basic Medical Sciences - Biophysics, Panjab University, Chandigarh and undertook her doctorate Research work in department of Biochemistry from Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh in the year 1993 under the guidance of Prof. R. Nath, Head of department of Biochemistry, PGI, Chandigarh and Prof G.S.Gupta, Department of Biophysics, Panjab University, Chandigarh.
3. It has been further alleged by the complainant that she being high credentials it was honour for her to get awarded with the prestigious post Doctorate Fellowship in the year 1994. She did her Post Doctoral research at Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California, San Francisco, USA as a post Doctoral Fellow (PDF) on the subject of Genetic Inherited Disorders. On the basis of her qualification and credentials, the complainant was selected as a Senior Lecturer (Biophysics) in the Department of Physiology, GMCH-32, Chandigarh though an open and direct national level competition in 1998 by the highest service commissions of our country i.e. The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), New Delhi. The complainant within few years of her joining GMCH-32, Chandigarh developed research facilities in the department of Physiology. In the year 2003 complainant was the first amongst the faculty of GMCH-32, Chandigarh to be awarded with the grant-in-aid project with a research fellow by the highest medical research organization of the country i.e. The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), New Delhi. In Criminal Misc. No. M. 3017 of 2012 3 addition to the academic inputs, the complainant has also persistently contributed towards all around development of GMCH-32, Chandigarh being the members of various committees like sports committee, literary committee, library committee, cultural committee, research committee, college function committee etc. Keeping in view the vast experience of the complainant in the fields scientific research especially in genetics particularly having the experience of Post Doctoral Fellowship on the subject of Genetic inherited disorders' and being co-investigators in various research projects in the field of molecular genetics being sponsored by various national function agencies of India. The Chandigarh Administration through Director Principal, GMCH 32, Chandigarh assigned the complainant with the additional duty to establish, develop and supervise the functioning of the only Genetic Centre in the northern part of the country. After establishing this Genetic Centre in GMCH-32, Chandigarh the same was duly recognized by the competent authority under the competent authority under the Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection ) Act 1994 (hereinafter referred to as PNDT Act 1994 in the year 2006. The standard and repute of the Genetic Centre not only being restricted to the region, rather it was recognized at the national level also, for which the complainant was conferred with an award by the prestigious National Academy of Medical Sciences (NAMS), New Delhi in the year 2009. The complainant has also had many research projects to her credit which were financially supported by some of the best scientific institutions of the country like Departmental of Science and Criminal Misc. No. M. 3017 of 2012 4 Technology (DST), Departmental of Biotechnology (DBT), council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR).
4. It has been further alleged by the complainant that due to the expertise and repute of the complainant in the field of research and development, ICMR enrolled the complainant as an expert to regularly render her opinion as an expert in the periodic meetings of ICMR.
5. It has been further alleged by the complainant that in the year 2002 the GMCH received the grant-in-aid of Rs.50lacs under the proposal of Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation. The complainant being the only faculty member having had the expertise in the field of genetics was assigned the additional duty of establishing the facility of genetic testing focusing primarily on prevention of disability to the complainant. Since then the complainant has been involved in establishing the infrastructure and standardization of various genetic test with respect to prevention of disability. Overall it took four years for the complainant to build up the infrastructure and make the Genetic Centre functional at GMCH-32 under U.T. Administration. During this developmental phase the complainant had proposed the name of the defendant (present petitioner) as a gynecologist for undergoing the requisite training on gynecological procedures as contemplated under PNDT Act 1994. By the year 2006 the Genetic Centre became fully functional. At the behest of the complainant the defendant was associated from the Department of Gynecology GMCH-32. In the year 2008 the complainant organized a continued Medical Education (CME) Program Criminal Misc. No. M. 3017 of 2012 5 to celebrate the World Disable day. On this platform the entire medical fraternity for the first time got to know about the fact that the complainant is instrumental in setting up the Genetic Centre. Somehow, the accused- petitioner was unable to digest this fact having become public as till that day on every given platform to the ignorance of the complainant the accused-petitioner was projecting herself as being instrumental for the establishment of the Genetic Centre, GMCH-32. The accused-petitioner could not graciously and gracefully accepted the truth having become public about the motivating force behind setting up of the Genetic Centre. The accused-petitioner also unable to digest the credit being given to the complainant for setting up of the Genetic Centre by the entire medical fraternity. It is at this stage that the accused-petitioner along with her husband Dr. Rakesh Sehgal connived together to demean and discredit the complainant at every given chance and at every public forum. The acts and conduct of the accused-petitioner in deliberately and willfully defaming the complainant by lowering her reputation in the eyes of public and also amongst her friends, family as well as her colleagues. Hence this complaint.
6. After recording of preliminary evidence, the trial Court vide order dated 3.1.2012 summoned the accused to stand trial under Section 500 of the IPC .
7. The present petition has been directed by the petitioner-accused against the summoning order dated 3.1.2012 passed by the trial Court.
8. On put to notice respondent-complainant appeared and filed reply and took up preliminary objections that the present petition is not Criminal Misc. No. M. 3017 of 2012 6 maintainable in the eyes of law for the reasons that the petition filed by the petitioner Dr.Alka Sehgal is wholly baseless and vague and is filed within mendacious and mala fide intentions. Therefore, the petitioner having approached this Court with tainted hands is liable to be dismissed with a very heavy cost in respect of false or vexatious claims/defence so that it can become a precedent for other frivolous litigation as well. The present petition is further liable to be dismissed and criminal contempt is liable to be issued against the petitioner under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as she had specifically accused the learned trial Judge by alleging in her petition in para No.3(ix) at page number 15 of petition by using words "...... for wholly extraneous consideration...." which is directly attributing motive to the learned Judge and his credibility. At the outset, it deserves to be brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner is a chronic complainant and has been regularly complaining against one or the other faculty members of Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh and her colleagues including the answering respondent and is in the habit of writing false, frivolous and motivated complaints against her colleagues as detailed in para No.4 of the preliminary objections of this reply. These complaints were enquired into and found unsubstantiated and were filed later on.
9. It has been further alleged that the accused -petitioner filed number of complaints against her by raising the similar issues of her qualifications, which were later on filed and the details thereof is given in para No.5 of the preliminary objections of this reply.
Criminal Misc. No. M. 3017 of 2012 7
10. On merits, it has been alleged that the answering respondent has filed complaint under Section 499 of the IPC and other relevant sections of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner, who is also working as Associate Professor, Obstetrics & Gynecology, GHCH-32, Chandigarh but is using her full force both directly and indirectly through ill-gotten and dishonest means to demean and discredit the Professional achievements and credentials of respondent/complainant as mentioned in the reply.
11. It has been further pleaded that just because the answering respondent was given the added responsibility of setting up the Genetic Centre at government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, the petitioner became highly jealous of her as the petitioner wanted to be head of Genetic Centre as after the inauguration of the Genetic Centre, the petitioner due to her vested interest started making frivolous complaints against the answering respondent. The petitioner- accused is no body to comment on her professional achievements or academic qualifications. The professional achievements and academic qualifications research experience of the answering respondent have been duly recognized by various Scientific Organization with conferment of prestigious awards like NAMS etc. The accused - petitioner has been deliberately misstating the facts and the petition deserves to be dismissed on the short ground of misstatement by playing fraud on the Court.
12. It has been further pleaded that essence of the offence under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC is an intention to cause harm to the person abused i.e., respondent-complainant. As seen from the letter publication, Criminal Misc. No. M. 3017 of 2012 8 newspaper items and even E-mails titled as "Dilemmas" etc (for which petitioner further reserves right to file separate suit (s) for defamation. Damages) and earlier suits pending before various and judicial forum (s) these statements/letters/publication etc were not used in the heat of moment as scurrilous abuse or merely as vulgar epithets but the situation in which they are used to convey were perfectly calculated and motivated.
13. It has been further pleaded that all the complaints, related to ineligibility regarding PNDT act were directed to the competent authority i.e. Director Health Services, Director PNDT, Chandigarh. Against all the complaints respondent-complainant has submitted written replies to the appropriate authorities. The authorities concerned found the answering respondent eligible and qualified as per the requirement of the PNDT Act, 1994 and has been renewed till 2016. Denying other averments answering respondent prayed for dismissal of the present petition with costs.
14. Professor Raj Bahadur filed reply on behalf of Chandigarh Administration and alleged that Dr. Gurjit Kaur - respondent has been working at Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH) Sector 32 Chandigarh since 1998 when she was initially appointed as Senior Lecturer (Biophysics) in the Department of Physiology through Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) on regular basis w.e.f. 20.07.1998. Dr. Gurjit Kaur was further re-designated as Associate Professor in the Department of Physiology w.e.f. 1.7.2003 vide order dated 25.5.2007. Dr. Gurjit Kaur, in addition to her own duties being Senior Lecturer/ Associate Professor in Department of Physiology, GMCH Sector 32, Chandigarh was also given Criminal Misc. No. M. 3017 of 2012 9 additional charge in Genetic Centre as Consultant-in-charge. She has been looking after the work of Genetic Centre in such capacity for the last 12 years. The Department of Physiology and the Genetic Centre are two different wings of GMCH-32, Chandigarh. The brief history regarding the establishment of the State of Art institution-Genetic Centre is that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in the year 2000 under National Programme for Rehabilitation of Persons with Disability (MPRPD) and PNDT Act, 1994 grant sanction of Rs.80lacs. It is at that time GMCH was declared as State Resource Centre for Disability and it was envisaged to start Genetic Centre with fund of Rs.50lacs and eventually to develop it to its present status. It is at that time that Prof. B.S.Chavan, looking after Mental Disability, was made Head of the Department to establish the Genetic Lab. Prof. B.S.Chavan, is the Professor and Head of Psychiatry and Dr. Gurjit Kaur-respondent a person with research background (Ph.D in Bio-Physics-Living Science) was made in charge of Genetic Lab and since then Dr. Gurjit Kaur-respondent in addition to her responsibility as Associate Professor (Bio-Physics) is looking after the Genetic Centre for the last 12 years.
15. It has been further alleged that earlier there was no post in GMCH in super specialty in Genetics but one post each of Professor, reader, Senior Lecturer/Genetics under Department of Anatomy, GMCH has been created by the approval of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi vide letter dated 14.10.2009. However, no appointment to the above mentioned post in super specialty of Genetics has been made till date in Criminal Misc. No. M. 3017 of 2012 10 absence of the Recruitment Rules ( yet to be framed).
16. Chandigarh Administration filed counter to the short reply dated 19.11.2012 filed by Dr.Alka Sehgal, and denied strongly being false and misleading and any concealment of material facts from the Court. It has been alleged that Dr.Alka Sehgal, has hidden material facts from the court. He, however, has submitted that no rules have been framed for the post of Medical Geneticists. Therefore, in the absence of any rules, the MCI rules would apply which in any way make the complainant eligible for the said post. Out of the five candidates, the Advisory Committee in proceedings dated 28.1.2010 hold that the answering respondent-complainant seems to be fulfilled the qualifications of Medical Geneticist. In Annexure R-4, one of the signatories is Anju Huria, Chairperson, Advisory Committee constituted under the PNDT Act, 1994 GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh. The accused petitioner while sending legal notice dated 14.6.2011 ( Annexure P-
4) to various authorities including Dr.Anju Huria, regarding the illegal appointment of the complainant as Consultant incharge of Genetic Centre, GMCH Sector 32, Chandigarh. Anju Huria, wrote back to the petitioner to say that she has no legal authority to appoint the complainant on the said post vide letter dated 11.7.2011. Now Chandigarh Administration has filed a reply relying upon the meeting dated 28.1.2010 which was attended by Dr. Anju Huria to say that the complainant seemed to be qualified to hold the post of Medical Geneticist.
17. It has been further alleged that petitioner applied under the RTI Act to know whether the persons who had attended the meeting of Criminal Misc. No. M. 3017 of 2012 11 28.1.2010 were in fact notified as members of the Advisory Committee, PNDT Act, UT Chandigarh. The reply given by the administration was to the effect that Dr. Anju Huria was the Chairman though she signed as a member in the meeting dated 28.1.2010 whereas Dr. Vidhu Bhasin, who signed as chairman of the Committee was not even a member of the Committee. Only Dr. Avneet Kaur who signed as a Committee Member on the meeting of 28.1.2010 was in fact a notified member of the Advisory Committee. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the Chandigarh Administration has wrongly based its claim of the qualification/competence of the complainant on the opinion expressed in the meeting of 28.1.2010. The petitioner also applied under the RTI Act to obtain notified rules from Chandigarh Administration, if any, governing the qualifications of a non- medical, non-clinical person like the complainant to be appointed as Medical Geneticist etc. The response thereto was that no such rules are available.
18. It has been further submitted that the Administration has filed a reply through Dr. Raj Bahadur who is otherwise a witness in the complaint case filed by the complainant against the petitioner that too without the knowledge and permission from his competent authority i.e., Chandigarh Administration. More than that the signatory Dr Raj Bahadur is inimical to the petitioner as he is facing inquiry into serious charges on a complaint filed by the petitioner, therefore, he is biased against the petitioner.
19. It has been further alleged that a Public Interest Litigation bearing Civil Writ Petition No.21241 of 2012 has been filed in which notice Criminal Misc. No. M. 3017 of 2012 12 of motion has been ordered on 19.10.2012. The final decision in the said PIL would also determine the fate of the present complaint case in as much as if the PIL is allowed then the claim of the petitioner qua the lack of qualification of the complainant would not amount to defamation.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that allegation in the complaint made by Dr. Gurjit Kaur against petitioner Dr. Alka Sehgal are that she has made false imputation that she is not qualified to act as Consultation Incharge heading the Laboratory Services of genetics as she is passing non-medical qualification of M.Sc. and Ph.D Bio-physics and does not possess any qualification to function as medical geneticist. It is submitted that she has no experience at all in the field of GOSA selection and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques ( Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 ( in short - the Act) which is mandatory requirement even under Section 2(g) of the Act. It is contended that petitioner is working as Associate Professor in the discipline of Obstetrics and Gynecological Centre in Government Medical College and Hospital Sector 32 Chandigarh. It is contended that petitioner has to act upon the report, submitted by Dr. Gurjit Kaur and ultimately find herself in difficulty in accepting the reports of non-qualified person under the Act. The legal notice was issued to the authorities of Medical College Sector 32, Chandigarh but no reply of notice has been submitted. The petitioner was not left with any remedy and she has filed CWP No.840 of 2013 directing Union of India to reply the legal notice. It is further contended that Smt. Anjana Saini filed CWP No.4269 of 2013 against the complainant and others and the controversy in that petition is Criminal Misc. No. M. 3017 of 2012 13 also that respondent Dr.Gurjit Kaur is not qualified under the Act. The child of Smt. Anjana Saini is suffering from "DOWN SYNDROME" due to the fault of Dr. Gurjit Kaur. It is further contended that in the form of CWP No.21241 of 2012 Suman Mahajan vs UOI the matter is pending before Hon'ble the First Division Bench in Public Interest Litigation. The controversy in that petition is also the same that Dr. Gurjit Kaur is not qualified to act as consultant under the Act. All these writ petitions have come into existence during the pendency of the present petition and as such Criminal Misc. No.15648 of 2013 has been filed to place these documents on the file. It is contended that similar controversy pending in the three Civil Writ Petitions before this Court, mentioned above and the final decision thereof is yet to come. The complaint case is pending before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh and the decision thereof cannot surpass the finding of High Court and as such it is submitted that Criminal proceedings under Section 500 of the IPC should be stayed till the decision of those writ petitions.
21. It is further contended that case of the petitioner falls within Exception 8 and 9 of Section 499 of the IPC. Exception 9 of Section 499 of the IPC can be envisaged that imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests, does not amount to defamation.
22. It has been further contended that the imputation that Gurjit Kaur does not possess the qualification under the Act is to protect her in interest as in case the petitioner relied upon the report of unqualified person that of complainant in that case she may have been held criminally Criminal Misc. No. M. 3017 of 2012 14 negligent. To support this contention learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon authority Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande vs. Uttam reported in 1999(1) RCR (Criminal ) page 800.
23. In reply to the above noted submissions, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that all the three writ petitions referred to above have cropped up after passing the summoning order. One of the writ petitions has been filed by the petitioner herself. The other two petitions have been got filed by the petitioners by using the proxy names. The very fact that all these writ petitions have been filed by Shri Ashok Paul Jagga, Advocate, who also happened to be the Advocate of the petitioner, goes a long way to show that the above said two petitions have been manipulated just to delay the proceedings of the complaint case.
24. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in reply to the notice the Chandigarh Administration has categorically stated that complainant possesses the requisite qualification under the Act. She has been given various Awards while acting as member under the Act. The mala fide of the complainant writ large from the reply filed by the Union of India in which it is mentioned that petitioner has not filed various complaints against the complainant only but has filed complaints against all the doctors of the GMCH Hospital which are 73 in number. So much so seventeen complainants have been filed against the complainant. The petitioner kept quite for long even after filing the complaints but when the petitioner- accused started publishing the news in the newspapers that complainant is unqualified person, in that case, she was not left with any option except to Criminal Misc. No. M. 3017 of 2012 15 file the complaint. She has not spared even the Principal of GMCH in various complaints. Therefore, it cannot be said that these complaints are filed under bona fide belief.
25. It is further submitted that it is not out of place to mention here that it was the complainant who recommended the name of the petitioner to associate training of under the Act. In fact, the petitioner wanted to be the head of the PNDT department but complainant was elected as Head in various projects and the petitioner has developed zealous against the petitioner. Out of the frustration, she has filed various complainants against the complainant and others. Meeting of the Advisory Committee was held on 28.1.2010, which is Annexure D-I on the file. The said committee reached to the definite conclusion that complainant fulfilled all the qualifications under the PCPNDT Act, 1994. Again in the reply filed by the administration, it has been again reiterated that stand. The complainant is a qualified person and is working as associate professor. At the initial stage, the petitioner has been making the allegations against the complainant before various authorities only but later on started publicly defaming her in the newspaper. Copies of the Newspaper have been placed on the file. It is further submitted that petitioner has even objected to the continuation of MBBS course and post-graduation course at GMCH Sector 32 Chandigarh and that fact shows the frustration at the hands of petitioner. It is contended that criminal proceedings cannot be set at knot mere filing subsequent writ petitions. The allegations made against the complainant cannot be said to be bona fide and are only mala fide and out of jealousy.
Criminal Misc. No. M. 3017 of 2012 16
26. The learned Magistrate has passed the well reasoned order. In authority Bhushan Kumar and another vs State (NCT of Delhi) and another reported in 2012(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) page 794 wherein it has been held that order of summoning cannot be faulted only on the ground that the same is not reasoned order.
27. In authority Jeffrey J. Diermeier & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. Reported in 2010(6) SCC 243, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in the absence of any evidence on record it is difficult to return a finding whether or not the appellants have satisfied the requirement of "good-faith" and "public-good" so as to fall within the ambit of explanation 10th of Section 499 of the IPC. The complaint on that ground cannot be allowed to be quashed. At the stage of summoning only prima facie case has to be seen.
28. The Hon'ble Apex Court in authority Iridium India Telecom Ltd. vs. Motorola Incorporated and others reported in 2011 (1) SCC page 74 held that summoning order cannot be quashed at the threshold. So, prayer has been made for dismissal of the petition.
29. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have gone through the records of the case with their able assistance.
30. After going through the pleadings and submissions made by both the parties, the stage has been set to give a finding whether interference in the summoning order of the petitioner as an accused in complaint case under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is made out or not?
31. It is settled principles of laws that criminal proceedings cannot Criminal Misc. No. M. 3017 of 2012 17 be set at knot. At the initial stage, unless the petitioner is able to convince this Court that continuation of proceedings amounts to clearly an abuse of the process of the Court or that complaint has been filed with a mala fide intention. Both these conditions, discussed above, are not fulfilled from the facts of the present case.
32. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments is fair enough to concede that in case it is proved that complainant is possessing the qualification for the post which she is holding under the PNDT Act, in that case, sending notice in the newspaper that she is unqualified, amounts to defamation.
33. From the perusal of the reply, it is revealed that the present petitioner has filed seventeen complaints about the qualification of complainant- Dr. Gurjit Kaur. These complaints have been made to Central Vigilance Committee, President, Additional Director Principal, GMGC, which were addressed to various other functionaries including Ministry of Health. Shri Ram Niwas Secretary-cum-Chief Vigilance Officer two complaints to Shri M.S. Bains, appropriate authority of Director Health and Director Principal, three to Shri Ajay Sharma, Special Secretary, which according to the reply have been filed. The complainant has also placed on record the imputation. So, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the complaints made by the present petitioner are bona fide. From the reply also, it is revealed that 20 complaints have been sent to various authorities including Director Principal and other faculty members. The committee consisting of five doctors vide meeting note dated 17.1.2003 came to the Criminal Misc. No. M. 3017 of 2012 18 conclusion that Dr.Gurjit Kaur be given the responsibility of setting up the Genetic Centre. From the meeting note dated 9.11.2002, it is revealed that Dr. Gurjit Kaur proposed that Dr. Alka Sehgal to be associated with Genetic Lab along with Dr.Gurjit Kaur. The argument of counsel for the complainant is that since Dr.Gurjit Kaur was given up the responsibility of Genetic Lab and on that account the present petitioner is feeling jealous. All these facts have to be decided during the course of trial.
34. So far as the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner that three writ petitions which are CWP No.840 of 2013 ; Smt. Anjana Saini filed CWP No.4269 of 2013 and CWP No.21241 of 2012 Suman Mahajan vs UOI have been filed regarding the validity of qualification of Dr. Gurjit Kaur and as such the proceedings in the present case have to be stayed, is concerned that submission is without any substance. From all these three petitions, it is revealed that these have been filed much after the order of summoning and even after the filing the present petition. All these petitions have been filed by the same Advocate, who is representing the petitioner and as such the possibility of maneuvering the two writ petitions i.e., Smt. Anjana Saini filed CWP No.4269 of 2013 and CWP No.21241 of 2012 Suman Mahajan vs UOI, by the petitioner cannot be ruled out. The criminal proceedings cannot be set at knot by simply filing the writ petition before this court. It cannot be said that Judicial Magistrate Ist Class would sit over the judgments of this court. The fact remains that there is no verdict of any court till today that Dr. Gurjit Kaur is not possessing the requisite qualification for holding the post in Genetic Lab. The competent authority Criminal Misc. No. M. 3017 of 2012 19 has decided that Dr.Gurjit Kaur possessing the requisite qualification.
35. Authority Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande's case (supra) is remotely connected to the facts of the present case. In that case, accused made a report that complainant has abused his officer in drunken condition. The complainant was found to be guilty in departmental inquiry. Under those circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that case falls within the exception 8 of Section 499 of the IPC.
36. The Hon'ble Apex Court in authority Bhushan Kumar and another's case (supra) held that the order passed by the Magistrate cannot be faulted with only on the ground that summoning order is not reasoned order. In the said ruling, the Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that a person who has been summoned is legally bound to appear before the trial Court on the given date and time. It is further held in the said ruling that once the Magistrate has exercised the discretion, it is not for the High Court or the Supreme Court to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate or to examine the case on merits with a view to find out whether the allegations in the complaint if proved would ultimately end in conviction of the accused.
37. The Hon'ble Apex Court in authority Jeffrey J. Diermeier & Anr.'s case (supra) held that when accused has been summoned under Section 500 of the IPC and the accused sought quashing of the complaint on the ground that imputations were made in good faith, that cannot be accepted in the absence of any evidence on record. In that ruling it has been further held that offence under Section 499 of the IPC would be made out Criminal Misc. No. M. 3017 of 2012 20 irrespective of whether the complaint actually suffered directly or indirectly all the imputation alleged. Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that once the summoning order has been passed in that case no ground for interference is made out.
38. The Advisory Committee under the PNDT Act Union Territory Chandigarh, vide meeting dated 28.1.2010 reached to the conclusion that Dr. Gurjit Kaur seems to be a competent person under the Act. The petitioner-accused thereafter started rasing imputation against the members of that committee that those are also incompetent.
39. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much stress that since the advisory committee has stated that complainant "seems to be competent" and on that account she cannot be said to be competent, that submission cannot be accepted. Dr. Gurjit Kaur, as per Annexure R-6 has been awarded the prestigious Shri Ram Travel Fellowship Award for the year 2009 by the National Academy of Medical Sciences (NAMS). According to the complainant, Dr. Gurjit Kaur, she has been given other Awards for working on the post under the PNDT Act.
40. So, in view of the above discussion, no case for interference under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. against the summoning order is made out.
41. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed.
42. However, it is made clear that any observation made above shall not influence the trial Court in deciding the complaint.
43. These observations have been made simply for deciding the present petition.
Criminal Misc. No. M. 3017 of 2012 21
44. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.
( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE March 15 , 2013 sv