2021 Supreme(P&H) 1293
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Meenakshi I. Mehta, J.
Nirmal Singh Bhangu - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
Cr M M No. 25805 of 2021
Decided On : 29-07-2021
Baltej Singh Sidhu, Advocate, Divij Datt, Advocate, Samina Dhir, Advocate
Headnote:
Section 482 Cr.P.C - Quashing of Orders - Sections 406 and 420 IPC, Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005, Sections 3 and 4 of the Price Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 - The court upheld the jurisdiction of the Special Court at Bemetra to issue the production warrant for the petitioner's presence in connection with the criminal case. It also affirmed the jurisdiction of the Duty Magistrate, Sri Muktsar Sahib, to entertain and pass the impugned orders. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the abuse of the legal process by the petitioner and the authorities' deplorable conduct in aiding the petitioner to evade his production at the Special Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the quashing of orders for his medical examination and production before the Special Court at Bemetra, Chhattisgarh, in connection with a criminal case. The petitioner was an undertrial in a criminal case at Sri Muktsar Sahib and was facing trial in Bathinda Contonment.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the jurisdiction of the Special Court at Bemetra to issue the production warrant and the Duty Magistrate, Sri Muktsar Sahib, to entertain and pass the impugned orders. It dismissed the petition, highlighting the abuse of the legal process by the petitioner and the authorities' deplorable conduct.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Special Court at Bemetra, Duty Magistrate's jurisdiction, Compliance with production warrant, Petitioner's medical condition and abuse of legal process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the jurisdiction of the Special Court at Bemetra and the Duty Magistrate, Sri Muktsar Sahib. It emphasized the abuse of the legal process by the petitioner and the authorities' deplorable conduct.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the jurisdiction of the Special Court at Bemetra and the Duty Magistrate, Sri Muktsar Sahib. The petitioner's abuse of the legal process and the authorities' conduct were highlighted.
JUDGMENT
Meenakshi I. Mehta, J. - By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for seeking the quashing of the order dated 24.06.2021(Annexure P-1) passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (Duty), Shri Muktsar Sahib {for short 'JMIC (Duty)'} for getting his (petitioner's) medical examination conducted at Rajindera Hospital, Patiala as well as the order dated 28.06.2021 (Annexure P-2) whereby JMIC (Duty) directed the Superintendent, District Jail, Sri Muktsar Sahib, to make the necessary arrangements for his (petitioner's) production before the Special Court at Bemetra, Chhattisgarh, on 13.07.2021.
2. As per the factual backdrop culminating in the filing of this petition, the petitioner is, presently, confined in the afore-said Jail as an undertrial in the criminal case arising out of the FIR bearing No.42 dated 01.06.2016 registered at Police Station Bathinda Contonment under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. However, the Special Court, Bemetra issued a production warrant (Annexure P-9) directing the Superintendent of the said Jail to produce the petitioner before it to give reply in the Criminal Case pertaining to the FIR bearing No.173 of 2017 registered at Police Station Bemetra under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005 as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Price Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and for further proceedings as well. Mr. Dhal Singh Sahu, Sub Inspector, Police Station Bemetra, presented this production warrant before the Superintendent of the afore-said Jail for its compliance but the petitioner informed that he was not feeling well. Then, he was got medically examined at Civil Hospital, Sri Muktsar Sahib and the doctors opined that he was 'unfit' for long travelling due to his medical condition.
3. Thereupon, as mentioned in the impugned order Annexure P-1 itself, the said Sub Inspector moved an application, through the Assistant Public Prosecutor concerned, before the JMIC (Duty) for getting the medical examination of the petitioner conducted by the Panel of senior doctors in Government Rajendra Hospital, Patiala and also for the compliance of the production warrant issued by the said Court at Bemetra, while pleading that the petitioner was got examined by the jail authorities at the local Civil Hospital in his (SI's) absence despite his having raised the objection for the same. It has also been mentioned in the afore-referred impugned order that the Superintendent of the Jail, in his reply to the said application, submitted that when he was completing the formalities qua the production warrant, the petitioner stated that he was not feeling well and was unable to travel to Chhatisgarh. After hearing the State counsel and the counsel for the petitioner on the above-said application, the impugned order Annexure P-1 was passed therein. Then, on the receipt of the report on the medical condition of the petitioner from Rajindra Hospital Patiala, the JMIC(Duty) passed the impugned order Annexure P-2 on 28.06.2021 mentioning therein that as per the report of the said Medical Board, there was no apparent restriction for long distance travelling by the petitioner, i.e from the said Jail to Bemetra and one doctor may accompany him.
4. However, on 06.07.2021, the petitioner was taken to Guru Gobind Singh Medical College & Hospital at Faridkot for his medical examination and the Medical Board, after examining him there, referred him to the Gastroenterology Department, PGIMER, Chandigarh (for short "PGI"). The petitioner was brought to PGI on 09.07.2021 and vide the order as passed by this Court on that day, the Director, PGI was directed to constitute a Medical Board comprising of the Experts in view of the ailments of the petitioner as reported in his medical record and the said Board was directed to examine the petitioner and to give specific opinion qua his (pet