Dr. S.K. Jain vs State of U.P. and Others

Shri C.K. Parekh and Shri H.C. Mishra have filed an impleadment application on behalf of Smt. Munni Devi and Smt. Poonam Gupta-the accused in the crime under Sections 323, 325, 307, 498A and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered after the petitioner had given a medical report, verifying the injuries on the person of Smt. Rasmi and her father Shri Ajai.

In this matter, arising out of the suspension order of the petitioner, Smt. Munni Devi and Smt. Poonam Gupta are neither necessary nor proper parties to the proceedings. The impleadment application on their behalf is accordingly rejected.

Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent no.1, 2 and 3. Issue notice to respondent no.4. Steps may be taken within a week.

Shri Damodar Sharma-respondent no. 4-an ex-MLA, made a complaint against the petitioner for filing a false medical report. Prima facie we find that as a politician, he had no concern with the crime, or the medical report. He will file his affidavit explaining his concern and personal knowledge of the affairs and capacity in which he has interfered in the criminal proceedings, and the disciplinary action proposed against the petitioner.

The petitioner has been placed under suspension after a preliminary enquiry in which the Additional Director has not drawn any conclusion with regard to the false medical report. The Additional Director, however, found that the petitioner had deliberately withheld the information in the preliminary enquiry with regard to the loss of the Medical Legal Register, in which the medical report was recorded.

In the preliminary enquiry the petitioner stood by his defence that he had personally examined the injured persons himself in the presence of a Pharmacist and a lady employee of the hospital and had verified the injuries. It was later on found that the concerned page of the Medical Legal Register was missing.

Prima facie, the only allegation against the petitioner is that he did not disclose the loss of records presuming that he had knowledge of the loss of the register and was keeper of the records.

Shri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not the custodian of the records of the Medical Legal Register. He had examined the injured persons in discharge of his official duties and had given statement in preliminary enquiry verifying the report and the injuries. The Magistrate has in his order calling the accused to frame charges, has only found that the offence u/s 307 is not prima facie made out.

Until further orders, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 20.9.2011, shall remain stayed.