IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3734 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
1. Dr.G.M.Prakash, S/o Sri.G.Madegowda, Aged about 57 years, R/o 2nd Cross, Bandigowda Layout, Mandya – 571 401.
2. Dr.Hanumantha Prasad, S/o late Sri.B.Muniyappa, Aged about 52 years, R/o No.302A, 3rd Floor, Doctor’s Quarters, Government General Hospital, MIMS, Mandya – 571 401.
3. Smt. Jaya H., D/o Sri.P.H.Raju, Aged about 40 years, R/o No.25, 6th Cross, Pipeline Road, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru – 560 040. … Petitioners (By Shri. Gaurav G.K., Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, Represented by the Mandya East Police Station, Mandya – 571 401. Represented by the Learned SPP – 560 001.
2. Sri.K.Krishnegowda, S/o late Karigowda, Aged about 65 years, R/o Induvalu Village, Kothathi Hobli, Mandya – 571 478. … Respondents (By Shri Nasrulla Khan, HCGP for R1;
Shri G.B.Sharath Gowda, Advocate for R2) * * * * This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the PCR No.280/2019 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya and all further proceedings in furtherance of order dated 22.05.2019 passed in PCR No.280/2019 on the file of the Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya praying to register FIR For the offences P/U/S 119, 120(b), 161, 175, 176, 197, 406, 409, 417, 418, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for admission, this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R Second respondent has filed a private complaint registered as PCR No.280/2019 before the II ACJ and JMFC at Mandya alleging:
that Dr.G.M.Prakash (accused No.1) was not qualified to be appointed as Director of Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences (‘MIMS’ for short);
that the complainant had sought certain information about the first accused by writing letters to the Institute under the RTI Act. But the institute has not responded to the said letters;
that drugs were purchased by MIMS at higher costs for the year 2015-2016 and 2016-2017;
that the waiting area has been converted into a canteen;
that there has been a scandal in appointment of D- Group employees in MIMS;
that a scandal has taken place in illegally transferring the funds under the “Arogya Raksha Samithi Nidhi” from Nationalized Bank to private Bank.
2. With the above allegations, complainant prayed for a direction to the police to register the first information report and to report the progress of investigation to the learned Magistrate once in every fortnight.
3. Learned Magistrate has referred the case to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
4. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned Magistrate referring the matter to the Police for investigation.
5. Learned HCGP on instructions submitted that during the pendency of this petition, FIR No.60/2019 has been registered in Mandya East Police Station on 11.6.2019.
6. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that this Court while considering a similar case involving appointment of Doctors in Crl.P.No.4884/2012 and connected cases decided on 19.2.2019, has quashed the proceedings.
7. Learned HCGP and learned Advocate for the complainant argued in support of the complaint and the FIR.
8. I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records.
9. Admittedly, complainant is a third party. He has initiated criminal proceedings by filing a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and sought for registration of first information report and monitoring of the case by the learned Magistrate. The substance of allegations contained in the complaint are extracted herein above.
10. This Court while considering the case of appointment of Doctors in the very same medical institution viz., Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences has recorded as follows:
“7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners, who are Doctors were appointed in Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences. The said Institute is a State owned autonomous medical institute. The institute is governed by Medical Council of India Guidelines and instructions issued by the State Government from time to time. Some of the petitioners in these petitions have attained the age of superannuation and they have retired from their services.”
11. Admittedly, MIMS is a State owned autonomous body and it is governed by guidelines issued by the Medical Council of India and instructions of the State Government from time to time.
12. Appointment of Director of a Medical Institute is a matter between the employer and employee. However, it may not preclude any citizen interested in public interest litigation to take up the matter before appropriate authorities or before the appropriate Court in a public interest litigation.
13. So far as the allegations with regard to procurement of medicines is concerned, a State owned Medical Institute is governed by the norms prescribed by the Government. Without there being any material and in the absence of specific averments and documents in support of allegations contained in the complaint, Government owned medical institutions cannot be exposed to criminal prosecution.
14. Next grievance of the complainant is with regard to converting waiting area into a canteen. It is always open to the management of the Institute to use the building and the open area in the manner which may be felt appropriate subject to obtaining permission from Municipal Authority whenever required.
15. Last two grievances are with regard to unauthorized appointments of D-Group employees and illegal transfer of funds under the “Arogya Raksha Samithi Nidhi” from Nationalised Bank to Private Bank, respectively.
16. Perusal of the complaint shows that omnibus allegations have been made by the complainant without placing any material in support of his allegations. Further as noticed hereinabove, if a person interested in public interest is desirous of carrying further his aim and objective, he may perhaps do so in the manner known to law by approaching the administrative authorities and the Court in a public interest litigation. The administrative matters which are dealt by the administrators cannot be made subject matter of criminal prosecution by permitting the police authorities to investigate into the matters based on allegation of third parties who are not privy to the proceedings.
17. In the light of the above discussion, criminal prosecution initiated by the complainant amounts to abuse of powers of law and hence not sustainable.
18. Resultantly, this petition merits consideration and it is accordingly allowed. Proceedings in P.C.R.No.280/2019 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Mandya are quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE RS/* CT:SN