Dismissed

Dr K Umesh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Nov 2020CRL.P/100439/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dr. K. Umesh filed a criminal petition to quash proceedings alleging he practiced without qualifications. The Court held the allegations of using an unrecognised certificate were sufficient grounds for investigation and dismissed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition stands dismissed. Proceedings for Crime No. 5/2017 allowed to continue.

Dr K Umesh Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100439/2017

¶6

Between:

¶7

Dr. K. Umesh s/o K. Hulgoji Rao, Aged about 38 years, r/o Sri. Devi Clinic, behind T.G. Oil Mill, Indiranagar, Ballari Post, taluk & dist.

¶8

Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri Rakesh Hattikatagi, Amicus Curiae)

¶10

And:

¶11

The State of Karnataka by APMC Yard Police Station, Ballari, Rep by SPP, High Court, Dharwad.

¶12

Sri. Rehan Basha, aged: major, The Tahsildar, Ballari taluk & district And Chairman Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Committee, Ballari.

¶13

Respondents

¶14

(By Sri Praveen Uppar, H.C.G.P)

¶15

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the complaint dated 20.01.2017 filed by the complainant registered in Crime No. 5/2017 of APMC Yard Police Station, Ballari & etc.

¶16

: 2 : CRL P. NO.100439/2017

¶17

This Criminal Petition coming on for orders through physical hearing/video conferencing hearing this day, the court made the following:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The present petitioner has sought for quashing of the entire proceedings under Crime No. 5/2017 of the first respondent Police Station which is registered for the offences punishable under Section 19 of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishment Act, 2007 (henceforth for brevity referred to as ‘K.P.M.E. Act’) and under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (henceforth for brevity referred to as ‘I.P.C.’) .

¶20

The summary of the case of the prosecution is that, the complainant who is also said to be the Chairman of Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Committee, Ballari, while in his Office on 20.01.2016 at about 5 p.m., received a credible information that, two

¶21

fake Doctors were running their clinic on BangaloreBallari road. He joined by the Member Secretary, Dr.

¶22

CRL P. NO.100439/2017

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

Hanumanthappa, Taluka Health Officer, Sri Sridhar, Police Sub-Inspector of the Brucepet Police Station, Ballari, Sri Y.S. Hanumantappa, Police Sub Inspector of the first respondent Police and two panchas, proceeded to the spot in their official vehicle and went to the medical establishment said to have been run by the present petitioner under the name and style “Sridevi Clinic”. The present petitioner was said to be present in the said clinic acting as a Doctor. He said to have produced his alleged certificate of registration shown to have been issued by the Council of Alternative System of Medicines. The Member Secretary who was in the team verified the same and submitted that the same is not a competent certificate to practice. The team also said to have noticed the presence of the medical instruments, stethoscope, B.P. apparatus and several of the drugs which was seized under a panchanama. Similarly, in the adjacent premises also one more similar

¶25

: 4 : CRL P. NO.100439/2017

¶26

medical establishment was visited by this team and noticed that it also being run by a fake Doctor. In that regard, the said Tahasildar lodged a complaint with the first respondent Police which was registered in Crime No. 5/2017 for the offences punishable under Section 19 of K.P.M.E. Act and Section 420 of I.P.C.

¶27

The respondents are being represented by learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶28

Though the petitioner was originally

¶29

represented by his counsel, however, due to the continuous non-appearance of the said counsel, this Court by order dated 06.11.2020 appointed an Amicus Curiae for the petitioner, as such, learned Amicus Curiae is representing the petitioner.

¶30

Learned Amicus Curiae and the learned

¶31

H.C.G.P. are physically present before the Court.

¶32

CRL P. NO.100439/2017

¶33

: 5 :

¶34

6. Though this matter is listed for admission ,

¶35

however, with the consent from both sides the matter is taken up for its final disposal.

¶36

Heard the arguments from both sides and

¶37

perused the material placed before this Court.

¶38

The offences alleged against the present petitioner in the first information report are for the offences punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. and 19 of the K.P.M.E. Act. It is alleged that the present petitioner pretending himself as a qualified Doctor was cheating the public, when in fact he was not a qualified medical practitioner. Further, it is also alleged that his medical establishment was also not registered under K.P.M.E. Act.

¶39

Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the petitioner in his arguments submitted that the present petitioner is a qualified medical practitioner and he has

¶40

: 6 : CRL P. NO.100439/2017

¶41

obtained a registration certificate from the Council of Alternative Systems of Medicines established under Act XXVI of 1961 of Govt. of West Bengal as could be seen from Annexure-A. He also submitted that the Council of Alternative Systems of Medicines, which is also registered in the State of West Bengal, further shows that the petitioner had fulfilled the qualifying requirements of the Bachelor in Indo-Allopathy Medicine in 2013. The Amicus Curiae further says that the petitioner is also a member of Indian First Aid Association as per Annexure-D. He further says that St. John Ambulance Association, Andhra Pradesh State has provisionally issued him certificate that he has undergone training in First Aid Course in the year 2000. Further stating that he had made necessary application for registration of his establishment under K.P.M.E. Act and the same is pending consideration and that in a similar set of circumstances, a co-ordinate Bench of this

¶42

: 7 : CRL P. NO.100439/2017

¶43

Court has directed the registering authority to consider

¶44

his application and till then practice of the petitioner shall not be disturbed has relied upon a Photostat copy of the order of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 56542/2013 (GM-PES) in Mohammed

¶45

Naseeruddin Vs. State of Karnataka & Others dated 13.12.2013.

¶46

Per contra, learned H.C.G.P. for respondents No.1 and 2 submits that, none of the annexures produced by the petitioner with this petition would go to show that, he is a qualified medical practitioner eligible

¶47

and entitled to practice as a Doctor. However, he concedes that petitioner has made an application and the same is pending since about five years.

¶48

The offences alleged against the petitioner

¶49

are Section 420 of I.P.C. and 19 of the K.P.M.E. Act.

¶50

It is the specific allegation of the first respondent Police that the petitioner is a fake Doctor

¶51

CRL P. NO.100439/2017

¶52

: 8 :

¶53

and he is not a qualified medical practitioner. Secondly, his establishment is also not a registered establishment under K.P.M.E. Act.

¶54

Section 2(k) of the K.P.M.E. Act defines as to

¶55

who is a Medical Practitioner, which reads as below:

¶56

(k) “Medical Practitioner” means a Medical Practitioner registered under the Karnataka Homeopathic Practitioners Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act 35 of 1961), Karnataka Ayurvedic, Naturopathy, Siddha, Unani or Yoga Practitioners’ Registration and Medical Practitioners’ Miscellaneous provisions Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act 9 of 1962), Karnataka Medical Registration Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act 34 of 1961), Indian medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (Central Act 48 of 1970), Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1978 (Central Act 59 of 1973) and Medical Council Act, 1956 (Central Act 102 of 1956) to practice the system of medicine which he has studied, qualified and registered and includes a Dentist registered under the Dentists Act, 1948 (Central Act 16 of 1948);

¶57

CRL P. NO.100439/2017

¶58

: 9 :

¶59

The very same Section in 2(n) defines a ‘Private Medical Establishment’ on the following lines:

¶60

(n) “Private Medical Establishment” means a hospital or dispensary with beds or without beds, a Nursing Home, Clinical Laboratory, Diagnostic Centre, Maternity Home, Blood Bank, Radiological Centre, Scanning Centre, Physiotherapy Centre, Clinic, Polyclinic, Consultation Centre and such other establishments by whatever name called where investigation, diagnosis and preventive or curative or rehabilitative medical treatment facilities are provided to the public and includes Voluntary or Private Establishments but does not include Medical Establishments run or maintained or sponsored by,-

¶61

(i) the State Government or a Local Authority or other Statutory body; (ii) the Public Sector Undertakings owned or controlled by the State or Central Government; (iii) autonomous institutions owned or controlled by the State or Central government; (iv) a Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, in which more than fifty per cent of shares are held by the State or Central government or both;

¶62

CRL P. NO.100439/2017

¶63

: 10 :

¶64

(v) a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and which is owned or controlled by the State or Central Government;

¶65

(vi) a trust owned or managed by the State or Central government or any Local Authority.

¶66

Section 6 of the very same K.P.M.E. Act

¶67

speaks about the pre-requisites for registration of Private Medical Establishment. According to Section 6(ii) of the K.P.M.E. Act, one of the pre-requisite for registration of a Private Medical Establishment is adequacy of staff, qualified doctors, qualified and trained para medical persons.

¶68

The very complaint is that the present petitioner was not a qualified Doctor. The complaint specifically alleges that he is a fake Doctor. No doubt the petitioner through Annexures-A, D and E has tried to show that he is a qualified Doctor. The copies of the certificates at Annexure-A which are shown to have been

¶69

: 11 : CRL P. NO.100439/2017

¶70

issued by alleged registered society said to have been established under Act XXVI of 1961 of the Government of West Bengal and bearing the name “Council of Alternative Systems of Medicines” admittedly does not find a place in the definition of Medical Practitioner under Section 2(k) of the K.P.M.E. Act. The said Section gives a list of the authorities or the bodies which can confer a qualification to practice as a medical practitioner. The Council of Alternative System of Medicine which is alleged to have been issued certificate to the present petitioner as per Annexure-A is not one of the authorities or the bodies shown in Section 2(k) of the K.P.M.E. Act.

¶71

Even though the learned Amicus Curiae relied upon the order of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mohammed Naseeruddin case (supra) but the said judgment does not speak about alleged non-qualification of the petitioner therein. Without touching the said

¶72

: 12 : CRL P. NO.100439/2017

¶73

aspect as to whether the petitioner was qualified or not, the Court proceeded to give direction to the respondent authority to consider his alleged pending application for registration whereas present case is a criminal case where the Chairman of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Committee, Ballari, joined by his Member Secretary and other team members claims to have conducted a raid on the alleged medical establishment of the petitioner and has come out with a finding that he was not a qualified medical practitioner and has termed him as a fake Doctor, as such, the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. is also alleged in the complaint and the first information report. Therefore, I am of the view that the respondents have placed sufficient material to proceed with the investigation, as such, it is not a fit case to interfere exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to quash proceedings.

¶74

CRL P. NO.100439/2017

¶75

: 13 :

¶76

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.

¶77

ORDER

¶78

Criminal Petition stands dismissed.

¶79

The Court while acknowledging assistance

¶80

extended by learned Amicus Curiae recommends the registry to consider an honorarium of a sum of not less than `3,000/- payable to him by the registry at the earliest.

¶81

Registry to transmit a copy of this order to the

¶82

Court where the case in Crime No. 5/2017 is said to be pending, forthwith.

¶83

In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.

¶84

No. 1/2019 does not survive for consideration.

¶85

SD JUDGE

¶86

bvv

Dr K Umesh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr K Umesh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suheel @ Suhel S/O Mehaboobali Nadaf Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Janakibai @ Sarojani W/O Sitaram Kamat Vs the State of Karnataka

The Managing Director Vs Vikas Sahebrao Ahire

Abdulrafiq Abdulkariim Mulla Vs State of Karnataka

Abdul Sattar Abdul Kariim Mulla Vs State of Karnataka

Ismail Yusuf Pathan Vs State of Karnataka