Dr. Allauddin Siddiqui vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This miscellaneous criminal case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed on behalf of accused/petitioner Dr. A.D.

Siddiqui for quashing the first information report no.163/2015 registered by P.S. Shahganj District Sehore under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the

Indian Penal Code and Section 24 of the Madhya Pradesh Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam, 1987 and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom.

The facts giving rise to this miscellaneous criminal case may be summarized as hereunder: First informant Dr. V.W. Deshmukh was Block Medical

Officer in CHC Budhni District Sehore. Pursuant to order dated 04.09.2015 passed by Chief Medical and Health Officer Sehore, he inspected the

clinic of co-accused Poonam Chand Sahu at Shahganj. The first informant was accompanied by Tehsildar, Naib Tehsildar and members of police

force. During the inspection, co-accused Poonam Chand Sahu was found to be practicing allopathic medicine. At that time, a drip was being

administered to one Nanhelal and an eight year old child named Manish was being treated with allopathic medicine. On being asked, Poonam Chand

Sahu produced the certificate purportedly issued by petitioner Dr. A.D. Siddiqui, Registrar of Madhya Pradesh Ayurvedic Tatha Unani Chikitsa

Paddhati and Prakratik Chikitsa Board, Bhopal. Aforesaid certificate was found to have been forged. During investigation it was revealed that the

signature of the petitioner Dr. A.D. Siddiqui resembled with his signatures on documents admittedly signed by him; therefore, a charge sheet under

Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 24 of the Madhya Pradesh Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam, 1987 was filed in

the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class.

Learned counsel for petitioner Dr.A.D. Siddiqui submits that co-accused Poonam Chand Sahu was practicing allopathic medicine on the strength of

a forged certificate purportedly issued by petitioner Dr. A.D. Siddiqui, who happened to be Registrar of aforesaid Board at the relevant time. The

petitioner was not aware that such a forgery has been committed by co-accused Poonam Chandand and he has been practicing medicine on the

strength of such a forged certificate. The forged certificate produced by co-accused Poonam Chand was not signed by him. The report of the

Examiner of Questioned Documents, does not support the prosecution. Hence, there is nothing to support the prosecution case against the petitioner.

As such, petitioner A.D. Siddiqui is a victim of forgery committed by co-accused Poonam Chand; however, he is being prosecuted as an accused.

Therefore, it has been prayed that the first information report and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom, be quashed.

Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure but has conceded that the report of Examiner of Questioned Documents, does not support the prosecution.

On perusal of the record and due consideration of the rival contentions, the Court is of the view that this miscellaneous criminal case must succeed

for the reasons hereinafter stated.

A perusal of record reveals that at the time of inspection of the clinic of co-accused Poonam Chand on 17.09.2015, it was found that he was

practicing Allopathic medicine on the strength of certificate no.29163 purportedly issued by petitioner A.D. Siddiqui in his capacity as Registrar of

Madhya Pradesh Ayurvedic Tatha Unani Chikitsa Paddhati and Prakratik Chikitsa Board, Bhopal dated 22.05.2006. A perusal of Register no.23

maintained by aforesaid Board reveals that name of one Parmeshwarlal Nagar S/o Mohanlal Nagar has been entered at Serial No. 29163. By letter

dated 31.12.2015 Dr.S.C.Khambra, Registrar of the Board informed SHO Shahganj, District Sehore that Dr. Parmeshwarlal Nagar has been

registered at Serial No.29163 in the Board. As such, the certificate produced by co-accused Poonam Chand was a forged document. There is

allegation in the instant case that present petitioner A.D. Siddiqui, who had retired in the year 2011, had issued that certificate. However, there is no

material in the case diary to indicate that this certificate was signed or issued by the petitioner. Had it been signed by the petitioner, it would have been

a false certificate and not a forged one. Moreover, the report of Addl. State Examiner of Questioned Documents dated 30-6-2017 opines that the

differences mentioned in the writing characteristics were significant and sufficient and when considered collectively, prove the opinion of different

authorship between the two sets of documents namely the documents on which the signatures were admitted and the questioned document. Thus,

there is no ground to presume even prima facie that the petitioner was in any manner, complicit in aforesaid forgery.

In these circumstances, present petitioner A.D. Siddiqui cannot be held legally liable if a forged certificate in his name has been prepared and used

as genuine by the co-accused. In fact, he is a victim, in whose name a forged certificate has been prepared. In these circumstances, if the first

information report is not quashed and criminal proceedings are allowed to continue against the present petitioner, it would be an abuse of process of

Court; Therefore, the first information report deserves to be quashed so far as petitioner A.D. Siddiqui is concerned.

Consequently, this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed. First Information Report no.163/2015 registered by P.S.

Shahganj District Sehore under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 24 of the Madhya Pradesh Ayurvigyan Parishad

Adhiniyam, 1987, is quashed so far as petitioner A.D. Siddiqui is concerned. The criminal proceedings arising from aforesaid first information report

against the present petitioner are also quashed. The trial shall proceed in accordance with law against co-accused Poonam Chand Sahu.