Partly allowed

Indranil Chowdhury v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Mar 2024Cr.M.P./532/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 482 CrPC sought quashing of criminal proceedings against a person allegedly practising medicine without registration. The Court quashed cognizance for non-existent Section 64 of the 'Indian Medical Act' and non-penal Section 25, but upheld proceedings under Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, allowing the petition partly.

What did the court decide?

Portion of cognizance order dated 12.09.2019 relating to Section 64 'Indian Medical Act' and Section 25 IMC Act quashed; rest upheld; interim relief vacated.

Indranil Chowdhury Vs the State of Jharkhand — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

Cr. M.P. No.532 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.532 of 2022

¶3

------

¶4

Indranil Chowdhury @ I.N. Choudhary, aged about 56 years, son of late Pulinbihari Choudhary, resident of Patamda, P.O. and P.S.Patamda, District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.

¶5

… Petitioner Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Dhurv Pad Mahto S/O Late Lakhi Kant Mahto, r/o Jalla, P.O. Patmarha, P.S. Pat Marha, Dist- East Singhbhum

¶8

… Opposite Parties

¶9

For the Petitioner : Ms. Moushmi Chatterjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Jitendra N. Upadhyay, Advocate ------

¶10

P R E S E N T

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶12

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶13

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 12.09.2019 passed in Patamda P.S. Case No.25 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. No1093 of 2019 whereby and where under cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Jamshedpur against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 15/25 of the Indian Medical Council Act and Section 64 of the Indian Medical Act.

¶14

The allegation against the petitioner is that though the petitioner is not a medical practitioner enrolled on State Medical Register, was practicing

¶15

¶16

Cr. M.P. No.532 of 2022

¶17

medicine in the State of Jharkhand and against the consent of the informant and his wife treated the wife of the informant causing her miscarriage.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no Act named as ‘Indian Medical Act’ and Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 has only Sections up to 34, so, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Jamshedpur has committed a grave illegality by taking cognizance of a non-existent provision of law being Section 64 of the “Indian Medical Act”. It is next submitted that Section 25 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 is not a penal provision of law and the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 is not made out against the petitioner. Hence, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Jamshedpur has committed a grave illegality by taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 64 of the “Indian Medical Act” and Section 25 of the Indian Medical Council Act. Hence, it is submitted that the portion of the order taking cognizance dated 12.09.2019 passed in Patamda P.S. Case No.25 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. No1093 of 2019, be quashed and set aside.

¶19

Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand fairly submits that there is no Act in the name of the “Indian Medical Act” and also fairly submits that Section 25 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 is not a penal provision of law but both the learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other jointly submit that the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 is squarely made out against the petitioner; hence, this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 12.09.2019 passed in Patamda P.S. Case No.25 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. No1093 of 2019 passed

¶20

¶21

Cr. M.P. No.532 of 2022

¶22

by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Jamshedpur be quashed and set aside. It is lastly submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶23

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record as the undisputed fact remains that there is no Act named as Indian Medical Act, hence, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Jamshedpur has committed a grave illegality by taking cognizance of a non-existent offence being Section 64 of the “Indian Medical Act” and also that Section 25 of the Indian Medical Council Act is not a penal provision of law but so far as the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 is concerned, keeping in view the allegations made in the F.I.R., the materials collected during the investigation of the case and the charge-sheet, it is crystal clear that the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 is made out against the petitioner. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 12.09.2019 passed in Patamda P.S. Case No.25 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. No1093 of 2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Jamshedpur be quashed and set aside. Hence, the portion of the order dated 12.09.2019 passed in Patamda P.S. Case No.25 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. No1093 of 2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Jamshedpur so far as it relates to the offence punishable under Section 64 of the “Indian Medical Act” and Section 25 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956; is quashed.

¶24

This Cr.M.P. is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.

¶25

¶26

Cr. M.P. No.532 of 2022

¶27

In view of the disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 18.07.2022 stands vacated.

¶28

Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.

¶29

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶30

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 18^th of March, 2024 AFR/ Animesh

¶31

Indranil Chowdhury v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indranil Chowdhury v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pintu Pandit Vs the State of Jharkhand

Surendra Karmali Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pankaj Kishore Upadhyay Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amit Mehtar Alias Ful Mehtar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Alok Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr the Secretary Deptt of Personnel Administrative Reforms