JUDGMENT Amar Saran, J.
1. Heard Shri A.B.L. Gaur and Nitin Gupta for the applicants and Shri F.S. Chauhan, opposite party No. 2 in person.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed for quashing the criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 2211 of 2000 under Sections 167/ 466/469/471/500 IPC and the order dated 9.8.2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar summoning the applicants in the aforesaid sections.
3. In a short compass the facts of the case are that applicant No. 1, Dr. R.K. Sharma, was the Medical Officer at the Dadri Unit of the NTPC and the applicant No. 2, Shri A.K. Atrea was the Senior Manager, who was entrusted with the task of being the presenting officer in a domestic enquiry, which was being conducted against opposite party No. 2, who was also an employee of NTPC. This enquiry was being conducted as it was alleged against the complainant that he had assaulted his controlling officer, Shri Brij Kishore. The said assault is said to have resulted in the fracture of the little finger of Shri Brij Kishore.
4. The instant complaint was filed by Shri F.S. Chauhan, opposite party No. 2, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar on 30.5.2000, alleging that Shri Brij Kishore, the controlling authority of opposite party No. 2 had made a false complaint of assault on him by opposite party No. 2 and in pursuance of the conspiracy to falsely implicate him, the applicant Dr. R.K. Sharma had fabricated the medical prescription of the out patient department of NCPP Hospital of the NTPC by adding the words " AU X-ray Rt. Hand < AP/OBL". This information was not mentioned and only the word AD after the description of the injury on the right hand was mentioned in the original script. This was done dishonestly and fraudulently for causing loss to the opposite party No. 2 and for harming his reputation.
5. After examining complainant F.S. Chauhan and his witness Raj Bahadur under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar summoned the applicants under the aforesaid sections by order dated 9.8.2000.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that this prosecution has been launched in a mala fide manner in view of the fact that opposite party No. 2 himself was facing departmental proceedings for having assaulted his controlling officer Shri Brij Kishore on 2.12.1996. Shri Brij Kishore had even suffered a fracture of base of proximal flanges of the little finger of his right hand. This was revealed in an x-ray conducted on Brij Kishore on 2.12.1996. In order to put pressure on the applicants, who were the Medical Officer and the Presenting Officer in the charge sheet against opposite party No. 2, the present complaint has been filed, it may be mentioned that the services of opposite party No. 2, the complainant were even terminated by the NTPC in pursuance of the charge sheet for having assaulted his senior officer.
7. It was further stated that when Shri Brij Kishore went to applicant No. 1 on 3.12.1996 for further check up along with his original medical report he had given his opinion on the back of the report on 3.12.1996, that after examination of the progress of treatment, the applicant No. 1 had found the condition of the bone satisfactory. At that time Shri Brij Kishore pointed out that inadvertently in his medical examination report "advise for x-ray" had not been mentioned, and on that basis on the previous report, the words, " AD X-ray Rt. Hand < AP/OBL" were incorporated and the applicant No. 1 also put his rubber seal on the original report.
8. This appears to be a completely natural conduct on the part of the applicant No. 1 and there is no trace of forgery whatsoever if such a course was adopted by applicant No. 1. Significantly, the word "AD" was already present on the original document which suggested that the examining doctor had inadvertently forgotten to mention the remaining portion " AD X-ray Rt. Hand < AP/OBL," and the addition appears to have been made in a bona fide manner, without any element of mens rea. Also the fact that Shri Brij Kishore had a fracture on the proximal flanges of little finger, was also disclosed in the x-ray, which was conducted on 2.12.1996 itself.
9. Therefore, no prejudice was caused to the opposite party No. 2 by the said addition and it was done in a natural manner without any intention to commit any forgery for causing any harm to any party. In fact it appears that the opposite party No. 2 himself, who was accused of having assaulted his senior officer was given to lodging of complaints to brow beat his superior officers as is apparent from his earlier complaint against Shri Brij Kishore, Senior Manager, Shri G.P. Singh, General Manager, NTPC. This fact is mentioned in the present complaint itself. The present case thus appears to be another example of a criminal complaint being filed maliciously to put undue pressure on the applicants in order to afford protection to opposite party No. 2 for the illegal act for which he has been charge sheeted on 17.12.1996 for assaulting his senior controlling officer, and for which his services appear to have been terminated.
10. It is interesting to note that opposite party No. 2 have not even made Brij Kishore, who would be a beneficiary of any forgery, if any, as party in this case. All these circumstances reveal the wholly mala fide nature of the complaint and persecution by the complainant. Only one witness Raj Bahadur Singh, who was the defence assistant of opposite party No. 2 was examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C before the impugned summoning order was passed.
11. Filing of charge sheet against the complainant and steps taken in that connection in pursuance of which the said interpolation is said to have been made in the Medical report, cannot be said to be defamatory in any manner, as the same would be protected under the Seventh and Eighth Exceptions mentioned in Section 499 I.P.C which state that "Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another" and "Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person" do not amount to defamation. Hence on the facts of this case a prosecution under Section 500 IPC is clearly not sustainable.
12. For the reasons mentioned above as this addition of the words " AD X-ray Rt. Hand AP/OBL" appears to have been done only to cover up an inadvertent omission, there is no question of any forgery, or making any false document or part of a document with intent to cause damage or injury, to any person or to the public, and thus no offence under Sections 466/467/471 IPC was also disclosed against the applicants.
13. Likewise, as there is no framing or translating of any document in a manner which applicant No. 1 knows or believes to be incorrect, intending thereby to cause any injury to opposite party No. 2 as he simply appears to have corrected an inadvertent omission, when in fact the x-ray had already revealed the fracture on the right proximal little finger of Shri Brij Kishore. Hence in the circumstances no offence under Section 167 IPC was also disclosed against the applicants.
14. The opposite party No. 2 has contended that these being the questions of fact, can only be examined by the trial court. I am not in agreement with this contention of opposite party as the powers of the High Court are unfettered and this Court has plenary inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing criminal proceedings which amount to an abuse of the process of Court in the interest of justice. In this connection it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 that when the allegations are ex facie wholly absurd that no prudent person would act upon them or when the prosecution has been instituted in a mala fide manner in order to wreck vengeance, then these are instances when prosecutions may be quashed in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Paragraphs 102(5) and 102(7) of the law report describe these two categories where quashing of a complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C is possible as follows:
"102(5). Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
102(7). Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. "
15. More recently, relying on its earlier decision in State of Karnataka v. L. Munnniswamy and Ors., 1977(3) SCR 113, the apex Court has held in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, 2003 CBC 393 (Supreme Court) that it would not be expedient to allow a lame prosecution to continue and the ends of justice are higher . than the ends of mere law. In this connection the following extract from paragraph 10 of the aforesaid case in B.S. Joshi is pertinent.
"In State of Karnataka v. L. Munniswamy and Ors., considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under Section 482, this Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that ends of justice so require. It was observed that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. "
(Emphasis added)
16. It was also pointed out by the opposite party No. 2 that the applicants had already filed their objections against the summoning order.
17. In the case of Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and Ors., 2004(3) Crimes 350 (SC) it has been laid down by a 3 judge bench of the apex Court that no objections can be filed against the summoning order. By that decision the view in the case of K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala and Anr., (1992) 1 SCC 217 which permitted the Magistrate to recall his summoning order on being satisfied by the objections raised by the accused has been over-ruled, in this view of the matter, it was not of much significance that the applicants did not press their objections for recall of the summoning order before the Magistrate, but have instead sought to get the proceedings quashed before this Court as no purpose would be served in pursuing the application for recall of the summoning order before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, who had no such powers to allow such an application.
18. It was also argued by the O.P. No. 2 that only a criminal revision ought to have been preferred against the summoning order and no application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be entertained. He placed reliance on the case of K.K. Patel v. State of Gujarat (S.C.), 2000(41) ACC 351 for this purpose. This case lays down no such proposition. It only mentions that an order refusing to discharge the accused on objections filed by them, is not a purely interlocutory order, as if the objections had been sustained then the proceedings would have terminated. Hence such an order is revisable, and the bar under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C restraining the revisional court from interfering with such an order does not apply. This law report does not state that such proceedings can not be challenged on an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. On the other hand in the case of Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and Ors. (supra) it has been specifically mentioned in paragraph 16, that against an order summoning an accused Section 482 Cr.P.C is the proper remedy. Para 16 of the aforesaid law report reads as follows:
"It is true that if a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence, issues process without there being any allegation against the accused or any material implicating the accused or in contravention of provision of Sections 200 & 202, the order of the Magistrate may be vitiated, but then the relief an aggrieved accused can obtain at that stage is not by invoking Section 203 of the Code because the Criminal Procedure Code does not contemplate a review of an order. Hence in the absence of any review power or inherent power with the subordinate criminal courts, the remedy lies in invoking Section 482 of Code".
19. In the cases of Raj Kapoor v. State (AIR 1980 SC 258) and Madhu Limaye v. State, (AIR 1978 SC 47) it has been mentioned that for challenging a summoning order, where permitting legal proceedings to take place against an accused would amount to an abuse of the process of Court or where there was a legal bar, it was permissible to challenge the same either in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C or in a Criminal Revision. The label was immaterial.
20. For the reasons given above, permitting criminal proceedings to continue against the applicants would amount to an abuse of the process of law, and accordingly this application succeeds and is allowed, and the aforesaid criminal proceedings against the applicants are quashed.