##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Dr. Sarita Teotia .....Applicant(s)

Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pratik J. Nagar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shyam Babu Vaish Court No. - 80 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Heard Mr. Pratik J. Nagar, learned counsel for the applicant; Mr. Shaym Babu Vaish, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2; and Mr. Jyoti Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of the order dated 30.11.2018, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Bulandshahr, in Complaint Case No. 2285 of 2017, Jaiveer Singh v. Dr. Sarita Teotia, under Section 420 I.P.C., and the order dated 16.10.2020, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, in Criminal Revision No. 36 of 2019, Dr. Sarita Teotia v. State of U.P. and another, as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present application are that opposite party No. 2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., alleging that his wife, Devendri, had been unable to conceive since their marriage. Approximately a year and a half earlier, opposite party No. 2 had taken his wife to Dr. Sarita Teotia at Teotia Hospital and Fertility Centre, Kotwali Nagar, Bulandshahr, for treatment. Dr. Sarita Teotia stated that she could help his wife become pregnant through in vitro fertilization and demanded Rs. 3,50,000/-, which opposite party No. 2 paid to her in installments. The doctor issued a receipt for Rs. 1,60,000/- but did not issue a receipt for the remaining amount. Despite receiving treatment at the hospital, his wife did not conceive. When he asked the doctor to refund his money, she repeatedly put him off and ultimately refused, saying, "This is how we make money: by misleading people. We have connections in high places." She refused to return his money. When the local police took no action, he sought recourse through the Court. The application was treated as a complaint case. The statement of opposite party No. 2 was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The statements of Smt. Devendri and Ravindra Singh were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate summoned the applicant under Section 420 I.P.C. Aggrieved by the impugned order, she filed a criminal revision, which was dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a medical practitioner by profession and obtained her MBBS degree in 1993 from Nagpur University. The doctor is highly skilled and qualified, and the hospital has earned a reputation for providing medical care, gaining the trust and confidence of innumerable patients. The applicant is engaged in tireless and sustained efforts to serve people by providing them with the most modern medical facilities. Opposite party No. 2 visited her hospital to seek treatment for his wife, who had been unable to conceive since their marriage. The applicant provided her with the best treatment, but, for certain reasons, she could not conceive. Learned counsel further submits that no medical procedure, especially IVF, has a guaranteed success rate of 100%. The failure of IVF cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be construed as evidence of fraudulent intent or cheating at the inception for the purposes of Section 420 I.P.C. The essential ingredients of Section 420 I.P.C., namely, dishonest and fraudulent inducement at the time of making the promise, are completely absent from the complaint. Opposite party No. 2 began threatening the applicant, demanding a refund of the amount he had paid for the treatment. When the applicant did not accede to his unlawful demand, he filed the impugned complaint out of vengeance and with mala fide intent. The statements of opposite party No. 2 and the other witnesses were recorded, but there is no evidence to supp