Allowed

Niranjan Lal Chipa S/O Shri Rekharam B/C Chipa v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC21 Oct 2019CRLMP/4518/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the second F.I.R. registered against a medical practitioner for offences under the IPC and Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The court held that filing a fresh FIR was unjustified given a pending stay order and earlier acquittal, and granted the petitioner's petition alongside a stay application.

What did the court decide?

F.I.R. No.0238/2019 dated 11.05.2019 and charge-sheet filed in pursuance thereof are quashed; Stay application stands disposed.

Niranjan Lal Chipa S/O Shri Rekharam B/C Chipa Vs State… — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4518/2019

¶3

Niranjan Lal Chipa S/o Shri Rekharam B/c Chipa, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Ward Number 2, Sethal Road, Dausa, Police Thana Kothawali, Dausa, Rajasthan, Present Operator At Deep Clinic, Gandhi Circle, Dausa, Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.

¶7

Dr. Sitaram Meena S/o Shri Gangaram Meena B/c Meena, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Gram/post Dungarpur, Police Thana Ramgarh Panchwara, Dausa, Raj.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta For State : Mr. Arvind Bhadu, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

21/10/2019

¶13

Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking quashing of F.I.R. No.0238/2019 dated 11.05.2019 registered at Police Station Kotwali Dausa Distt. Dausa, Raj. for offence under Section 420 & 419 of I.P.C. and Section 15(2) & 15(3) of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956; Section 18 (C) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.

¶14

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner vide order dated 31.03.1973 issued by Office of the Drugs Inspector & Health Officer, Jaipur, was permitted to work as R.M.P. He on the directions of the Medical and Health Department gave his services for eradication of Polio and Malaria etc. and was given appreciation Certificate by C.M.H.O. from 1996 till 1999. A

¶15

(2 of 5)

¶16

[CRLMP-4518/2019]

¶17

complaint was lodged by the Drugs Inspector under Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The said complaint was dismissed and judgment was passed in favour of the petitioner on 07.11.1988. An Appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan before Rajasthan High Court bearing Criminal Appeal No.139/1989 was dismissed on 23.11.2007. Petitioner being a tenant in shop, second set of litigation was initiated by his landlord and F.I.R. was lodged on 06.09.2011. Police submitted negative final report on 28.11.2011.

¶18

It is also contended that in the Government Portal dated 19.10.2016 (Annexure-8), petitioner is shown as a competent R.M.P. It is contended that a notice was given to the petitioner by Block C.M.H.O. on 31.07.2018, aggrieved by which petitioner preferred a Civil Suit before Civil Judge, Dausa, Rajasthan. Temporary Injunction Application was decided and parties were directed to maintain status quo vide order dated 12.10.2018.

¶19

It is further contended that Block C.M.H.O. filed another F.I.R. on 10.08.2018 and without waiting for the result of investigation, another F.I.R. was also lodged on 11.05.2019, which is being challenged in this Petition. 5. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that order dated 31.03.1973 has not been withdrawn by the State and in the Government Portal dated 19.10.2016 also, petitioner is shown as a registered Medical Practitioner. It is also contended that petitioner has been practicing for last more than 50 years and at the behest of landlord who wants to get the shop evicted, unnecessary criminal cases are being filed against the petitioner.

¶20

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that since order dated 31.03.1973 has not been specifically withdrawn by the

¶21

(3 of 5)

¶22

[CRLMP-4518/2019]

¶23

Department, petitioner is entitled to practice as R.M.P. It is also contended that since petitioner stands acquitted under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act and in F.I.R. lodged against the petitioner Police has submitted negative final report, fresh F.I.R. could not have been lodged against the petitioner. It is also contended that present F.I.R. has been lodged when investigartion in the earlier F.I.R. was pending.

¶24

It is further contended by counsel for the petitioner that Police has already submitted charge-sheet in the F.I.R. lodged on 10.08.2018 so there was no justification in filing fresh F.I.R. 8. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on “ T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 181 ” wherein Apex Court has held that after registering F.I.R. and commencing investigation registering of second F.I.R. or successive FIRs in respect of the same incident or crime and making of fresh investigation pursuant thereto would be irregular which call for interference by High Court under Articles 226/227 or Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of statutory power of investigation and to secure ends of justice.

¶25

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. It is contended that petitioner was given temporary relief for the purpose of Drugs & Cosmetic Rule, 1945. In the order dated 31.03.1973 itself, it was mentioned that temporary relief is being given as per Notification F.1(128)MPH/Gr. II dated 07.07.1964. It is also contended that this notification of 07.07.1964 stands withdrawn by Gazette Notification dated 12.09.2007, hence, petitioner can no longer continue as a registered Medical Practitioner.

¶26

I have considered the contentions.

¶27

(4 of 5)

¶28

[CRLMP-4518/2019]

¶29

It is pertinent to note that the complaint was registered against the petitioner under Section 18 (C) & under Section 27 of the Drugs & Cosmetic Act, in which petitioner was acquitted and Appeal preferred by the State was dismissed. Thereafter, F.I.R. was lodged by the landlord alleging therein that petitioner has no right to practice, as he was not a registered Practitioner. In the said F.I.R., Police has submitted negative final report, thereafter, another F.I.R. was lodged on 10.08.2018 by Block C.M.H.O. prior to the lodging of F.I.R., a notice was given to the petitioner and petitioner has obtained status quo order from the Civil Court.

¶30

It is true that Notification dated 07.07.1964 has been withdrawn vide Gazette Notification of 12.09.2007 but the order as mentioned in the Gazette Notification do not tally with the order number mentioned in the order dated 31.03.1973 vide which petitioner was permitted to practice as R.M.P. Even assuming that Notification as mentioned in the order dated 31.03.1973, is the same, which has been withdrawn by the State in the Gazette Notification dated 12.09.2007, still State in its portal on 19.10.2016 has mentioned that petitioner is competent to practice as R.M.P. The Notification as issued by the Government only mentions that order dated 07.07.1964 is withdrawn with immediate effect. There is no mention in the Notification that all the orders issued pursuant to that Notification are also being withdrawn. Since there is stay order operating in favour of petitioner and in the earlier F.I.R. charge-sheet has been filed, there was no justification in filing fresh F.I.R. on 11.05.2019. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, therefore, deserves to be and is accordingly allowed.

¶31

(5 of 5)

¶32

[CRLMP-4518/2019]

¶33

F.I.R. No.0238/2019 dated 11.05.2019 registered at Police Station Kotwali Dausa Distt. Dausa, Raj. and charge-sheet filed in pursuance thereof, is quashed.

¶34

Stay application stands disposed.

¶35

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶36

Amit Kumar/142

Niranjan Lal Chipa S/O Shri Rekharam B/C Chipa v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niranjan Lal Chipa S/O Shri Rekharam B/C Chipa v. State of Rajasthan

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

Alok Jain and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Sanjay Bhandari Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Smt.Saraswati Devi W/O Late Shri Balgovind Vs State of Rajasthan

Niranjan Lal Chipa S/O Shri Rekharam B/C Chipa Vs State of Rajasthan

Suraj@Daini S/O Dansingh B/C Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh S/O Shri Kanna Ram Vs State of Rajasthan