Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"On 07-03-2024, the complainant Dr. Sanjeev Chhabra S/o Rajender Chhabra Rio Village Kalayat, District Kaithal handed over his complaint to Inspector Sube Singh, An) Corrup)on Bureau, Unit Kaithal wherein he had alleged that he was running an Imaging and Diagnos)c Centre at Barsat 1 of 11 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097852 CRM-M-33903-2024 Road, Panipat. In year 2023, co- accused Dr. Pawan Kumar, Nodal Officer PNDT (pe))oner-accused) and Naveen Kumar (co- accused) dealing clerk, Civil Hospital, Panipat had checked F-Forms (pa)ent forms) in their centre and they issued him no)ce by deliberately crea)ng errors with the inten)on for taking bribe. When complainant met Dr. Pawan, then he told complainant to meet Naveen Kumar, dealing clerk in this regard. Therea8er, complainant met with co-accused Naveen Kumar who told complainant to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- bribe money, as per instruc)on given by Dr. Pawan Kumar (pe))oner-accused), this amount had been showen to complainant Dr. Sanjeev Chhabra by co-accused Naveen Kumar by wri)ng this in calculator. Therea8er, complainant gave reply to no)ce in December, 2023 but showed his inability to pay the said bribe amount upon which Dr. Pawan Kumar and Naveen Kumar had threatened the complainant that if bribe amount is not paid, then they will falsely implicate him (complainant) in PC & PNDT cases, due to this complainant met Naveen Kumar clerk, a week ago and he informed him that this case is now no longer in the hands of the Nodal Officer alone and it will be decided by the commi:ee now and demanded Rs. 3,00,000/- bribe money from complainant. Therea8er, on request of complainant, Naveen typed the bribe amount of Rs.

2,20,000/- on calculator and showed it to him and when he said that even this is too much, than Naveen told him that he will talk to Nodal officer. Therea8er, Naveen typed Rs.2,00,000/- as bribe amount on his calculator with the assurance that the ma:er will be se:led but he didn't want to pay the bribe money to Dr. Pawan Kumar, Nodal Officer and Naveen Clerk, hence, the present Case FIR No. 8 dated 07-03-2024 was registered u/s 7, 7A, PC Act, 1988 and 384, 120-B IPC in Police Sta)on, An) Corrup)on Bureau, Karnal.

9. Pe oner's next ground for bail is a delay of 08 months in the registra on of FIR. Counsel for the pe oner submits that the me was used to concoct evidence, delibera ons, and consulta ons. He further submits that the Centre was inspected not only by the pe oner but also by a team consis ng of Dr. Rinku and ADA Deepika Rani, and the report was signed on the spot, and complainant also signed the same. He further submits that if any incident of bribe had occurred, then it would have come to the no ce of the other two persons, who have not been arraigned as accused. The State's counsel submits that primarily it was the pe oner who had demanded a bribe from the complainant for the reason that the complainant had violated the provisions of the PNDT Act and the pe oner, being the Nodal Officer, had the primary responsibility to ensure that the ultrasound machines were not u lized for sex determina on. State counsel further submits that a lot of unscrupulous doctors misuse their ultrasound machines and disclose the gender of the unborn child to the expec ng mothers, and such mothers, when they find the fetus to be female, go for illegal abor ons or 5 of 11 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097852 CRM-M-33903-2024 termina on of pregnancy, which has imbalanced the gender amongst popula on. State's Counsel submits that although now, because of massive efforts, the popula on of females has again increased, this effort by the government agencies and NGOs will take a hit if this Court show any mercy on unscrupulous people like the pe oner and the complainant. An analysis of these arguments would lead to the outcome that in the commiGee cons tuted vide office order Annexure P-3, although there were other members, the pe oner cannot claim any benefit simply because the other four persons were not arraigned as accused and submit that he is to be absolved. The pe oner was the Nodal Officer and was in charge overall and in a dominant posi on. Even the complainant knew of the pe oner's domina ng posi on, and had agreed to pay the bribe through his tout and further payment to Vishal Malik. Thus, the pe oner is not en tled to bail on this ground.

10. The pe oner's next point is that when the complainant received a show cause no ce from DAA, he admiGed his mistake. This shows that the complainant was aware from the beginning that the maGer is pending before DAA, and the pe oner was not in a posi on to do any favour, and as such, there was no purpose for demand of any bribe. The State opposes this submission and submits that the complainant was afraid of the closure of his diagnos c center, which was working illegally in viola on of the PNDT Act and probably disclosing the gender of the unborn child. Even the pe oner told his domina ng posi on and assure to help the complainant and demanded money, however, complainant agreed to pay but he also reported the maGer to vigilance, which led to arrest of co-accused. An analysis of the above argument would lead to the outcome that simply because the no ce was issued would not mean that the pe oner, through Naveen Kumar, did not demand any bribe. There is corrobora ve evidence through audio recording and recovery of the bribe amount, which prima facie establishes the complainant's version and credibility of the inves ga on and thus pe oner is not en tled to bail.