ORDER

The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been directed against the order dated 08.09.2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Gwalior whereby the cognizance has been taken against the present petitioner under Section 3 r/w 8 of The Madhya Pradesh Upcharyagriha Tatha Rujopchar Sambanchi Sthapnaye (Registrikaran And Anugyapan) Adhiniyan 1973 (hereinafter referred as to "Adhiniyam, 1973"). The petitioner is further aggrieved by the order dated 10.02.2024 passed by VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge Gwalior in Criminal Revision No.184/2021 whereby the order passed by learned court below taking cognizance in the aforesaid sections has been affirmed and criminal revision has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset fairly stated that earlier one M.Cr.C. No.2870/2021 was filed challenging the private complaint on the basis of which the cognizance has been taken, was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to raise all the defenses which may be available to the petitioner at the time of hearing during trial and since the cognizance has now been taken against the order taking cognizance, a criminal revision was preferred and after its dismissal, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that as per Section 3 of the Adhiniyam, 1973, it is only in the cases where nursing homes or clinical establishments are opened and carried out without registration and licence, the offence under the said Act and section shall be made out and in consequence thereof, a person can be penalized as per Section 8 of the Adhiniyam, 1973, but herein case, the only allegation which has been levelled against the present petitioner is that she had given consultation to one patient in regard to termination of her pregnancy and for that had charged Rs.300/-

towards fees and as the question of running of nursing home or clinical establishment is not made out against the petitioner, therefore, cognizance taken under Section 3 of Abhiniyam, 1973 is per se illegal.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken exception to schedule 3 Part B of Madhya Pradesh Upcharyagriha Tatha Rujopchar Sambandhi Sthapanaye (Registrikaran Tatha Anugyapan) Rules, 1997 wherein certain norms are required for establishing a nursing home as well as reference has been made of the requirements for a clinical establishment and has argued that none of the requirements of a nursing home or clinical establishment was found at the residence of petitioner, who was at that very moment living in a Government accommodation and was working as "Demonstrator" in G.R. Medical College Gwalior and since prima facie the fact of the establishment of any nursing home or clinical establishment was not found at the residence of the petitioner, therefore, the order by which cognizance was taken against the petitioner under Section 3 of Adhiniyam, 1973 is perverse and deserves to be quashed.

5. It was further submitted that learned Revisional Court without considering this aspect in Para 9 of its order had just went on to affirm the order passed by learned trial Court and concluded that from bare reading of the complaint and the statements of witnesses, panchaytnama recording of present petitioner and decoy lady, it prima facie appears that offence under Section 3 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 is made out which is without any discussion and without any reasoning and therefore, deserves to be quashed.

6. To bolster his submissions, he has placed reliance in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kanwarjit Singh Kakkar Vs. State of Punjab and another (2011) 13 SCC 158 and while referring to Para 29, it is contended that at the most the act of the petitioner could be covered under professional misconduct, as she could be said to have been indulged in private practice while holding the office of Government Doctor without permission and at the most coul