SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Del) 669

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Dr. Tabassum Saifi - Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Appln. 2742 of 2023 & Cr.M.A. 7678 of 2024
Decided On : 28-03-2024

Advocates appeared:
Ms.Geeta Luthra, Senior Advocate with Mr.S.S. Sisodia, Mr.Saurav Kr. Singh, Mr.Moksh Kataria, Ms.Muskan, Mr.Karandeep Singh, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr.Aman Usman, APP with Insp. Ashok Kumar.
Complainant in person.

IMPORTANT POINT
The seriousness of the charges and the need for fair investigation were the central legal points established in the judgment.

Headnote:

Impersonation - Anticipatory Bail - Cr.P.C. - IPC 419/420/468/471 - The court discussed the provisions of Cr.P.C. and IPC related to impersonation, forgery, and medical negligence. The judgment emphasized the seriousness of the charges and the need for fair investigation, leading to the dismissal of the application for anticipatory bail.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant, a medical practitioner, is accused of impersonating herself as an MBBS doctor, using a forged stamp, and prescribing medicines that only an MBBS qualified doctor could prescribe. The deceased, after being admitted to the applicant's hospital, was shifted to another hospital where she passed away. The applicant denies the allegations and claims to be a qualified BUMS doctor.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution's allegations of impersonation and forgery to deceive patients into believing they were being treated by a qualified doctor are serious. The court emphasized the need for fair investigation and dismissed the application for anticipatory bail.

Issues: The issues revolved around the allegations of impersonation, forgery, and medical negligence by the applicant, leading to the need for fair investigation and the dismissal of the application for anticipatory bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the seriousness of the charges and the need for fair investigation, leading to the dismissal of the application for anticipatory bail.

Final Decision: The application for anticipatory bail was dismissed, and the court stated that any observation touching upon the merits of the case is purely for the purposes of deciding the question of grant of Bail and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the matter.

JUDGMENT

1. This application has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, `Cr.P.C.') praying for being released on anticipatory bail in FIR No.191/2023 registered at Shaheen Bagh, South-East, Delhi for offence under Sections 419/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, `IPC'). The above FIR has been registered post an order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. on an application filed by the Complainant-Mohd. Yousuf, father of the deceased-Andleeb Iram. During investigations, Sections 468/471 of the IPC have also been added.

Factual Matrix

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24.03.2022, the deceased was admitted to the hospital of the applicant herein, that is the Medicare Hospital, located at FA-39-40, Abul Fazal Enclave-1, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi, as she was complaining of labour pain. On the same day, at about 8-8:15 PM, she gave birth to a male child through normal delivery. Post the delivery, the deceased showed signs of mild Post-Partum Haemorrhaging (PPH), due to which she was losing blood and was in distress. The Complainant further stated that at about 8:20-8:30 PM, the father of the complainant took discharge of the deceased and shifted her to the Holy Family Hospital, NFC, Delhi, where she unfortunately passed away at about 10:30 PM. Subsequently, the father of the deceased filed a complaint, on 19.04.2022, and then, on a direction passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the above-mentioned FIR came to be filed. Initially, the FIR was registered for offence under Sections 419/420 of the IPC, but during the course of investigation, the charges under Sections 468/471 of the IPC have also been attracted.

3. It is further the case of the prosecution that during initial inquiry, it was revealed that the applicant holds a degree in Bachelor of Unani Medicine and Surgery (BUMS) from the Faculty of Medicine (Unani), Jamia Hamdard Delhi, but she had used a forged stamp by the name of Dr. F. Tabassum, MBBS, DGO (Obs & Gynae), having DMC registration no.69048. It is alleged that during the course of inquiry, it has been revealed that no such doctor is registered with the said registration number with the National Medical Council.

4. The prosecution further alleges that during the course of her examination, the applicant stated that the stamp was used by one Dr. F. Tabassum, who used to work in her clinic. The prosecution alleges that the said Dr. F. Tabassum, when contacted, stated that she had never treated the deceased and that the alleged stamp does not belong to her; she stated that her DMC Registration Number is R/9048. It is alleged that the applicant prepared/forged a fake stamp to impersonate herself as an MBBS doctor. She also prescribed modern medicines, which can be prescribed only by an MBBS qualified doctor.

5. The prosecution alleges that registration of the Clinic, that is, Medicare Hospital, has also expired on 31.03.2019, and the same is pending renewal.

Submissions by the learned senior counsel for the applicant

6. The learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a medical practitioner having 18 years of unblemished medical experience. She submits that the applicant has obtained her degree in BUMS from the Faculty of Medicine (Unani), Jamia Hamdard College, Delhi, which is a reputed deemed University of NCT of Delhi and has also been granted a Certificate of Registration by the Delhi Bharatiya Chikitsa Parishad. She submits that the Jamia Hamdard College of Unani is recognized by the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 in it's Second Schedule and the name of the applicant is also there in the State Register of Unani doctors of Delhi Baratiya Chikitsa Parishad.

7. The learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that vide the Office Memorandum dated 19.02.2014, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India has in particular encouraged that normal deliveries and post

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top