Madhya Pradesh High Court
Swaroop Narayan Dwivedi vs Kamleshwar Patel on 25 May, 2017
EP-17-2014
(SWAROOP NARAYAN DWIVEDI Vs KAMLESHWAR PATEL)
25-05-2017
Shri Girish Shrivastava, Ld. Counsel along with Shri R.K.
Tiwari and Pankaj Pathak, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Senior counsel with Shri Gaurav
Tiwari, counsel for the Respondent.
On 11-05-2017, the Respondent was to have been further examined in this case however, on account of the statement made by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent to the effect that he has suddenly fallen ill, this court adjourned the proceedings to 17-05-2017 as the same was not opposed to by the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner.
On 17-05-2017, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent moved an application for grant of additional time to examine the Respondent on the grounds of his illness. In support of the same, the Ld. Counsel had filed the treatment papers relating to the Respondent from Akshaya Meditech Hospital of Bhopal. The said reference was made to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal to rule out âCollagen Vascular Lymphoma resistant fungal infectionâ and further management. Thereafter, the case was listed on the next day i.e., 18-05-2017, in order to facilitate the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent to place before this court the treatment papers relating to Respondent being treated at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal. On 18-05-2017, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent appeared before this court and placed a copy of the affidavit executed by the Respondent in which the Respondent stated on oath that he was admitted in Akshaya Meditech Hospital from 10-05-2017 to 16-05-2017 and thereafter, he was referred to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal at 10:00 AM and was there till 3:00 PM of 17-05-2017. Therefore, further time was requested. However, on account of the opposition from the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner and because this Court felt it necessary to ascertain the truth relating to the facts in the affidavit filed by the Respondent, this court had directed the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal to seize all the records pertaining to the Respondentâs treatment at Akshaya Meditech Hospital in original, including the bed-head ticket prepared at the hospital during the course of the treatment given to the Respondent between 10-05-2017 and 16-05-2017. A copy of the order was also directed to be given to the Ld. Counsel for the State to ensure immediate compliance.
The case was thereafter listed on 19-05-2017 for the limited purpose of perusing the documents so seized by the police. On 19-05-2017, the police gave its report dated 18-05-2017, by which it has complied with the order of this court dated 18-05-2017 and had seized the documents, which have extensively been referred to in the order dated 19-05-2017 and do not warrant a repetition herein. Thereafter, the case was listed on 22-05-2017, when Ld. Counsel for the Respondent had sought time to file a reply based on the documents seized by the police. In the interest of justice and to ensure that there was adequate opportunity given to the Respondent to explain the circumstances against him, the case was listed on 25-05-2017.
Today, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has filed an explanation/reply supported by an affidavit. A copy of the same has been handed over to this court. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has also forwarded extensive arguments based on the documents seized by the police on 18-05-2017 giving an explanation for the same. As regards the affidavit of 18-05-2017, what is before the court is a photocopy of the said affidavit, which has been handed over by to it by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent himself. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent had orally stated on the last date of hearing that the original affidavit would be placed before this court, however, the original affidavit dated 18-05-2017 has not been placed before this court till date. However, once again, the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent has assured this court that the same would be done as soon as possible.
Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has submitted extensively that as to why an FIR ought not to be registered in this case as the investigation done by the police and the collection of documents by it on 18-05-2017, have been done maliciously, putting the hospital and the doctors under pressure and seizing their documents, which do not reflect the exact position of the treatment undergone by the Respondent and which, according to the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent, has been prepared after the order was passed by this court on 18-05-2017. In order to substantiate his contention, he has drawn the attention of this court to the documents at page-21 of the compilation filed by the police on 19-05-2017, in which the letter given by Dr. Deepak Chaturvedi, who is the Director of the Akshaya Meditech Hospital, reflects undue influence and pressure by the office of the Additional Advocate General. In order to buttress this contention, he has referred to the first five lines of the said letter in which it is stated âAs desired by Hon'ble the High Court, Additional Advocate Generalâ. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent states that there was no necessity for the Additional Advocate General to have passed any kind of instructions in this case as the orders of the court are only instructions to the police to collect the documents pertaining to the treatment of the Respondent at the said hospital, including the bed-head ticket and not to seek an explanation from the doctors or anyone else. As regards the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent that the Additional Advocate General was not required to communicate with the Director of the said hospital or the police, the same having been done cannot be said to be an excess on the part of the AG Office, as this court had specifically directed, that a copy of the order dated 18-05-2017 be given to the Ld. Counsel for the State for necessary action. Under the circumstances, the communication of the Additional Advocate General with the police on this issue cannot be faulted.
The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has also submitted that the said letter of the Director of the Private Hospital, which is at pages-21 to 25 of the compilation, reveals clearly that the same has been made under duress and the entire blame is sought to be placed on the Respondent. The said letter by Dr. Chaturvedi, who is the Director of Hospital only discloses the fact that the Respondent got himself admitted to the hospital at 9:30 P.M on 10-05-2017 and he was advised certain investigations and treatment including IV, antibiotics, and other medicines for Blood Pressure and cough. Thereafter, the Ld. Counsel has also drawn the attention of this court to the document at page-26 of the compilation of 18-05-17, which is a letter addressed by one Rohit Shukla, who is Manager of the said hospital, in which it is reflected that the Respondent was admitted in the said hospital from 10-05-2017 to 16-05-2017.
Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has stated this is the document that truthfully discloses that the Respondent had undergone treatment at Akshaya Meditech Hospital. As regards the documents that have been seized by the police on 18-05-2017, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent states that the said documents have been manipulated at the hospital under pressure, for falsely implicating the Respondent in this case. As on date, this court cannot give a finding on the genuineness of these documents, it can only take prima facie view of what these documents reveal. The document of discharge which was given to the Respondent, allegedly on 16-05-2017 by Akshaya Meditech Hospital, which has been filed and relied upon by the Respondent himself in IA No. 7535/17, wherein the summary of discharge reflects that the date of admission relating to the admission of the Respondent is 10-05-2017 at 10:30 AM. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has also submitted that on the date of admission, the Blood Pressure of the Respondent was 186/110. However, the discharge summary records the Blood Pressure of the Respondent with systolic showing as 150 instead of 186 and the diastolic showing as 110. However, the history sheet of Akshaya Meditech hospital at pages- 6 and 7 of the compilation of 18-05-2017, which is the first document generated by the hospital allegedly upon the admission of the Respondent, prima facie appears suspicious and shows immense stress and haste by the person preparing it. In this document, the indoor registration No. 649/5/17 is filled up in red ink and the name of the Respondent was written in blue ink as âKamlesh Patelâ and thereafter, corrected to âKamleshwar Patelâ. The age of the Respondent is shown as 50 years, which is also in blue ink. However, his fatherâs name and address and his phone number have been filled up in the next line with black ink. In the said document on page-7, the Blood Pressure is shown as 186/110. However, the '8' in â186â is shows signs of scribbling and over-writing. The admission date in the said document is shown as 10-05-2017 at 9:30 PM. The next document, which is at page 8 is the consent for treatment. This document only bears the name of the Respondent, his age, and address is shown as âBhopalâ and same does not even bear the signature of either the Respondent or his next of kin. The entire document is blank. The space where the nature of the illness was to mentioned is also left blank.
The other document which creates a prima facie suspicion against the genuineness relating to the admission of the Respondent and his subsequent treatment at Akshaya Meditech Hospital, is a document at page-13 which relates to the treatment accorded to the Respondent on 10-05-2017. The medicines, which are 5 in number are prescribed on the top and immediately thereafter, the entry relating to 16-05-2017 at 11:00 AM is seen on the said document, i.e., an entry pertaining to the date of which the Respondent was discharged from the hospital, on the reverse page, there are entries relating to the absence of the Respondent from the hospital made on 12-05-2017, in which it is written that the âPT is absconding from hospital for the last two days and taking medicines by himself and advised to discharge him and continue the sameâ. Below that there is another entry written that âinvestigation done, doesnât reveal any abnormality except high BP (146/94). Thereafter, there is another entry of 12-05-2017 which is at 12:30 PM, where the Respondent is stated to have come to hospital and said he is feeling better but, is suffering from mild cough and fever and if it increases, he will come back to the hospital again and therefore, requested that a room to be kept vacant for him. Thereafter, the doctor notes that âon examination, he seemed alright with stable vital so, he was given prescription for further treatmentâ. Document at page-15, also relates to 12-05-2017, wherein at 11:00 AM, a note of that âPt is not in hospital, so not given medicineâ and thereafter, it is written âPatient wants to continue treatment at home. In case of emergency, he will come to hospital again.â. On Page-17, which is also a noting on the daily report pertaining to 11-05-17 in which it is written that âPatient did not stay in the hospital. Took medicines by himself at home.â Document at page-19, is the case-sheet dated 10-05-2017, that is the date on which, the Respondent is stated to have got admitted in the hospital. His pulse is shown as 84 and Blood Pressure is shown as 180/110. There were certain drugs which were prescribed for administration to the Respondent. In order to establish the genuineness of the said prescription, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has drawn the attention of this court to the reply filed by the Respondent in which the receipts relating to the purchase of medicines are given at page-26 which is annexed as Annexure R/3. The medicines have been purchased from New Sadhana Chemist. The said medicines are alleged to have been purchased on 10-05-2017 i.e., on the date on which the Respondent was admitted to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal. The thrust of the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the Respondent was that he had extremely high Blood Pressure and he had got himself admitted at the said hospital for the treatment of the same, amongst other ailments, which was also told to the doctor, which was cough and cold and pain in the throat. The medicine relating to the control of Blood Pressure, which is Telma, does not find mention in the medicines which was alleged to have been purchased on 10-05-2017. Besides that, the medicines which have not been prescribed on 10-05-2017, have (Pantocid IV 40mg) has been purchased by the Respondent and in all the documents which have been seized by the police, from the hospital relating to the treatment of the Respondent, there is no mention of the said drug for administration to the Respondent. As regards the non-purchase of Telma 40 mg, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that he was already taking the said medicine and therefore, did not purchase it. However, the said argument put forth by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent is doubtful as after taking the said medicines, if the Blood Pressure of the Respondent was still soaring at 186/110, it seems very improbable that the doctor at Akashya Meditech Hospital would have prescribed the same medicine which was having no effect on the Respondent instead of suggesting some other drugs for the control and management of the Respondentâs BP. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has been much aggrieved by the report given by the Director of the said hospital Dr. Deepak Chaturvedi as the said report was in excess of the directions given by this court. Even de hors, the said document at pages-21 to 25, a bare perusal of the documents, which have been seized from the said hospital goes to show a strong prima facie case against both the Respondent and the hospital. At first blush, the said documents appear to be fabricated. In this regard, it would be beneficial to refer to the test report, which have been filed by the Respondent himself along with IA No. 7535/17, wherein the complete haemogram of the Respondent which is done on 10-05-2017, goes to reveal that the WBC count was 7330/cmm which was perfectly within the reference range of 4000-11000/cmm. The said reading shows prima facie that the Respondent was not suffering from any infection as otherwise, the WBC count would have soared beyond 11000 cmm. The only element that seems to have been beyond limit is lymphocyte which is 50% and all remaining parameters are absolutely normal. The Bio- chemistry test that was performed on the Respondent on 10-05-2017, shows that everything is normal with him except for triglycerides, which is shown as marginally higher than the reference range of 189. As regards of haemotology report, which was prepared on 16-05-2017, the same shows that there were no malarial parasites. The urine test that was done on 16-05-2017, also shows that there was nothing adverse in it. The bill which has been prepared on 16-05-2017, only goes to show that the Respondent was charged for occupation of a Deluxe Room for six days which amounted to Rs. 15,000/- and registration charges of 300/- totalling to Rs. 15,300/- and the haematology charges were additionally Rs. 2425/- towards investigation. The total, including service charges which was paid by the Respondent was Rs. 20,497/-. The documents seized by the police clearly go to show that the Respondent never stayed in the hospital, he used to walk in-and-out and actually dictated the terms in which his treatment has to be done at the hospital and hospital seems to have accommodated him. The conduct of the Respondent and his test reports clearly goes to reveal that he was not suffering from any serious malady which was impeding his movement thereby preventing him from appearing before this Court and completing his evidence. Instead, the Respondent has chosen the path of falsehood and filed an affidavit before this court wherein he has stated on oath that between 10-05-2017 to 16-05-2017, he was admitted in the said hospital whereas the documents of the hospital revealed that he never remained there and he walked in-and-out of hospital as and when he pleased. Even if the report of Dr. Chaturvedi is not taken into consideration, the entire set of documents seized by the police from Akshaya Meditech Hospital go to reveal that prima facie, this Respondent is guilty of filing a false affidavit dated 18-05-2017 on the basis of which, he wanted this court to grant him an adjournment.
The Respondent is a Legislator, a person, who holds the faith of the people who vote for him and that he would be honest in all his actions. But, the sheer temerity with which the Respondent has filed the said affidavit before this court, only goes to show the confidence of the Respondent that he could get away with falsehood. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has referred to paragraph-1, of his explanation and has stated that the Respondent has the highest regard for the courts and seeks to tender his unconditional apology for any of his actions, which this court thinks as objectionable. The affidavit dated 18-05-2017, has been executed by the Respondent herein in the morning of 18-05-2017. The said affidavit is prepared and executed under oath stating therein that he was undergoing treatment at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal. In paragraph-2, of the said affidavit, he has stated that on 17-05-2017, he had gone to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal at 10:00 AM and was there till afternoon at about 3:00 PM. The documents go to show that he must be treated as an out- door patient department. The affidavit does not state that he was admitted for further treatment at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal on account of which, he could not appear before this court on 18-05-2017. Therefore, this is a case where the court feels that no latitude can be given condoning the audacious act of the Respondent which prima facie constitutes the commission of offences under Sections 465 and 471 of IPC.
Under the circumstances, the Registrar (Judicial-II) is requested to direct the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal to register an FIR against the Respondent for offences under Sections 465 and 471 of IPC but not limited to said sections, the police shall be at liberty to add such other sections of IPC, if so revealed by material received by them. The Superintendent of Police, Bhopal is also requested to ensure that the investigation is fair and transparent and that the Petitioner in this case should also be allowed to place such documents and material before the police and the Respondent also shall be heard by the police with regard to his defence, which shall also be taken into consideration during the course of investigation. The police shall also receive such material by way of documents, which the Respondent and Petitioner wants them to enquire into, but restricted only to the allegations against the Respondent and his defence.
The Registrar (Judicial-II) shall direct the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal to ensure that the investigation shall be carried out without being influenced by anything stated in this order as the opinion of this court is only a prima facie finding, necessitating the registration of the FIR and nothing more. The police shall independently proceed with it unprejudiced by anything stated in this order and what may appear in the press. The investigation shall be fair and conducted in a transparent manner under the supervision of the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal as expeditiously as possible. The Registrar (Judicial-II) is also requested to ensure that the police investigates fairly and proceeds against every person, who appears to be complicit in the offence. This case be listed on 03-07-2017 for further examination of the Respondent instead of 22-06-2017 as posted earlier.
Let a copy of this order be given to the Ld. Counsel for the State for strict compliance and necessary action.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE PG