Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Del) 33251
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J
DEEPAK CHAUDHARY – Appellant
Versus
STATE & ANR – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 355/2011 | CRL.M.C. 356/2011 | CRL.M.C. 628/2011
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ravi Sikri, Sr. Adv., Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, Mr. Anirudh Tanwar, Ms. Eshita Pallavi, Mr. Adeeb Ahmad, Mr. Deepank Yadav, Mr. Kanak Grover
For the Respondents: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP, Ms. Ridam Arora, Mr. Sunil Rana, Mr. Vikram Pratap Singh, Mr. Devvrat Sharma, Mr. Vipin Kumar, Advs.
Proceedings under the SC/ST Act must satisfy specific legal thresholds and should not be misused for personal or professional grievances.
Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(ix) - Quashing of FIR - Allegations of caste-based discrimination among medical professionals did not meet the threshold for criminal liability as outlined under the Act - The actions were rooted in professional rivalry rather than caste animus. (Paras 31-49)
(B) Inherent Jurisdiction - The High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly to prevent miscarriage of justice, particularly when allegations do not substantiate a legal offence.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. description of the complainant's allegations (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. arguments presented by the petitioners (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. defendant's counterarguments and evidence (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 4. court's analysis of the case (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 5. court findings on the allegations (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 6. court's interpretation of statutory provisions (Para 44 , 45) |
| 7. final conclusion and ruling (Para 47 , 48 , 49) |
JUDGEMENT
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA,J :
A. PREFACE
1. The present petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the FIR No. 04/2007, registered at PS Sarojini Nagar, under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and all the proceedings emanating therefrom including summoning order dated 08.12.2010 issued by the Court of learned MM-07 (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi and the bailable warrants issued against Dr. A.K. Singh on 05.02.2011.
B. FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR bearing No. 04/2007, was registered at PS Sarojini Nagar, u/s 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the complaint of Dr Yadu Lal / Respondent no. 2/ (herein after referred to as „complainant‟).
3. The allegations made out in the complaint dated 15.12.2006 are that the petitioners namely Dr. A.K. Singh, Dr. Manoj Kumar, and Dr. Deepak Chaudhary, engaged in a concerted effort rooted in caste-based bias and personal vendetta to harass, defame, humiliate, and obstruct the promotion of the complainant to the post of Director/ Head of the Institute of Orthopaedics.
4. In the complaint, it has been alleged that Dr. A.K. Singh, the former Director and Head of the Central Institute of Orthopaedics (CIO) at Safdarjung Hospital, issued an order on 31.12.2003 that authorised only Dr Deepak Chaudhary and Prof. Dr. V.K. Sharma, both junior to the complainant to handle arthroscopic instruments. It was stated that despite the complainant‟s extensive experience in arthroscopic surgery, he was deliberately excluded from this authorization, which allegedly undermined his professional status and expertise.
5. Further, it has been alleged that Dr. A.K. Singh sent defamatory letters to the Secretary of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on 14.10.2004 and 25.11.2004, without following the proscribed channel and falsely alleging the complainant's incompetence and attributing surgical errors of putting the hook/rods in a wrong manner during a procedure on a patient Ms. Manju. It has been stated in the complaint that these accusations were made without any factual basis, as the surgical technique used by the complainant was well-documented in medical literature. These actions, according to the complaint, were intended intentionally to defame and discredit him.
6. Dr. A.K. Singh thereafter, allegedly got the contents of his letters published in the Asian Age newspaper on 5.12.2004 and 9.12.2004 and encouraged Ms Manju to file a legal case against the complainant, wherein the court did not construe any negligence on the part of the complainant. It has been alleged that in an attempt to further tarnish the complainant‟s image, and influence the proceedings, the petitioners herein arranged for an Aaj Tak media team to visit the Orthopaedics department on 13.03.2005, resulting in a televised segment on 14.03.2005 that defamed the complainant.
7. Thereafter, on 02.06.2005, Dr. A.K. Singh allegedly provided false testimony to a Broad-Based Committee, claiming that the complainant was the only senior faculty member involved in complications during surgeries. The complainant has stated that Dr. A.K. Singh failed to disclose his medical errors in prior surgeries in 2001 and 2003, including the negligent cutting of major blood vessels leading to limb loss for patients Amarjeet Kumar and Suruti Devi. It has been
