Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 1000
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
Abdul Sattar S/o Adu Khan - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7213/2022
Decided On : 06-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Javed Hussain
For the Respondent: Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit,Dy.G.A. Mr. Ravinder Singh, AGA
The court quashed the FIR due to procedural violations and lack of a cognizable offence, emphasizing the importance of natural justice.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 - Section 17(4) - Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Section 15(2) - Quashing of FIR - Petitioner accused of practicing medicine without requisite qualifications - FIR quashed due to procedural violations and lack of cognizable offence - Principles of natural justice violated as FIR registered without affording opportunity to be heard. (Paras 1, 2, 15, 17)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent powers of High Court - High Court can quash FIR if it is found to be an abuse of process of law. (Paras 3, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of practicing medicine without legal authorization, leading to the registration of FIR No. 0073/2022. The petitioner contended he was merely selling medicines and had not been given a chance to respond to allegations before the FIR was filed. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The FIR was quashed as the offences were non-cognizable and the registration violated procedural mandates of the CrPC. (Paras 17)
Issues: Whether the FIR was valid given the non-cognizable nature of the offences and the violation of natural justice principles. (Paras 10, 15)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the FIR was invalid due to the lack of cognizable offence and procedural lapses, emphasizing the importance of natural justice in legal proceedings. (Paras 14, 15)
Result: FIR quashed and set aside.
Order :
1. By way of filing this instant Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 0073/2022 dated 24.03.2022, lodged at Police Station Chohtan, District Barmer, for the alleged offence under Section 17(4) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 15(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
2. The present case stemmed from a complaint lodged by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner at Police Station Chohtan, District Barmer, alleging that the petitioner had been engaged in medical practice without possessing the requisite legal documents. It had been asserted that, in the presence of the Additional Chief Medical & Health Officer, Barmer, and the Tehsildar, Tehsil Dhanau, a team had conducted a raid at Jodhpur Medical & General Store, Itada, District Jodhpur, where the petitioner had been allegedly found practicing medicine. During the raid, certain medical equipment, medicines, and bills had been recovered and subsequently seized. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR No. 0073/2022 dated 24.03.2022 had been registered against the petitioner for offences under Section 17(4) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 15(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. However, the petitioner contended that he had been falsely implicated, as he had merely been engaged in the sale of medicines and medical instruments in his duly licensed medical store, Jodhpur Medical & General Store, and had never undertaken any form of medical practice. It had further been averred that, prior to the registration of the FIR, the petitioner had received a show-cause notice dated 23.03.2022 from the Block Chief Medical Officer, Chohtan, alleging that he had been practicing allopathy without authorization and directing him to submit relevant documents and an explanation within three days. However, the impugned FIR had been registered on the very next day, without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem. Aggrieved by the registration and investigation of the impugned FIR, and having no alternative remedy, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the FIR.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the impugned FIR had been lodged with a malafide intent to harass him, despite the absence of any prima facie offence. It had been asserted that the petitioner, being duly qualified with a Diploma in Pharmacy (D. Pharma) and possessing a valid license to run a medical store, had merely been engaged in the lawful business of selling medicines and medical instruments, without practicing medicine in any manner. The petitioner had further submitted that he had been served with a show-cause notice dated 23.03.2022 by the Block Chief Medical Officer, Chohtan, directing him to furnish documents and an explanation within three days; however, the impugned FIR had been registered on the very next day, without affording him an opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem. It had been urged that the allegations in the FIR were ex-facie baseless and did not disclose any cognizable offence, rendering its continuation a manifest abuse of the process of law. The petitioner had, therefore, prayed for the quashing of the impugned FIR under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to prevent undue harassment and miscarriage of justice.
4. Heard the learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record.
Court Observations and Analysis
5. Upon careful perusal of the facts and legal provisions involved in the present case, this Court is inclined to examine the statutory framework governing the allegations against the petitioner. The matter primarily revolves around the
