IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE(NORTH); ROHINI COURTS, DELHI Crl.R.No._____________ /2013 IN THE MATTER OF: SH.

JATIN CHAUDHARY REVISIONIST/ACCUSED VERSUS DELHI MEDICAL COUNCIL RESPONDENT /COMPLAINANT P.S.: MUKHERJEE NAGAR REVISION MOHINDER PETITION VIRAT, AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SH.

ADDITIONAL

CHIEF

METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, ON THE APPLICATION BY THE COMPLAINANT UNDER SECTION 156(3)OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Most Respectfully Showeth: BRIEF FACTS: 1. That the Revisionist/ Accused is a

practitioner of alternate medicine with the following qualifications: a) Bachelor of Physiotherapy from AAIDU Section established 3 UGC Act. under Copy

annexed at ANNEXURE A-1. b) Diploma Medicine. in Copy Alternative annexed at

ANNEXURE A-2.

c)

Doctorate Alternative

of

Philosophy Copy

Medicines.

annexed at ANNEXURE A-3. d) Diploma Diseases in Cardiology Heart

(Alternative

Medicines (D.H.D.(A.M.)) from Indian Board of Alternative annexed at

Medicine.

Copy

ANNEXURE A-4. 2. That Indian the Revisionist of is registered Medicine with with

Board

Alternate

registration certificate no B 12555 issued on 06.02.2007. 3. That vide decision rendered by High court of West Bengal at Calcutta on 07.06.1990 in the matter of Council of Alternative systems of Medicine and another Versus State of West Bengal and others, the said Indian Board of Alternate Medicine has been allowed to

impart education of Alternative systems of Medicine restraint. 4. That the Respondent/ body Complainant under is a without any interference or

statutory

constituted

Delhi

Medical Council Act, 1997.

5.

That the Revisionist has come to know from an article on page 3 of the Hindi Newspaper Navbharat Times dated 11.04.2013 that an order under section 156(3) of Criminal

Procedure Code has been passed by Honble Court at Rohini directing registration of an F.I.R. against him on complaint instituted by the complainant through its Registrar Dr. Girish Tyagi. The copy of the said article in the Hindi daily Navbharat Times dated

11.04.2013 has been annexed as ANNEXURE A-5. 6. That the Revisionist counsel has made come enquiries to has know been

through that

his

and

has

the

aforementioned

order

passed by the Learned Court of Sh. Mohinder Virat, Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate at Rohini Courts. 7. That the Revisionist wishes to submit that the Complainant Council had issued a show cause notice dated 06.03.2012 wherein it was alleged that the Revisionist was practicing allopathic system of medicine and was

directed to appear on 14.03.2012 before it. The copy of the said notice is annexed as ANNEXURE A-6.

8.

That the Revisionist submitted his reply to the aforementioned notice vide reply dated 06.03.2012 and denied that he had been

practicing allopathic system of medicine and also supported his qualifications The said reply by is

relevant

documents.

annexed as ANNEXURE A-7. 9. That vide communication dated 30.03.2012 the Revisionist was informed by Office of the Addl Commissioner Team, complaint an of Police, Special that

Investigating following a

Crime by

Branch Indian was

Medical

association,

enquiry

instituted

against him and nothing incriminating came on record against him during the same and all his certificates were verified and found correct. It was also clarified that his

practice of alternate medicine is legal. The copy of the said communication is annexed as ANNEXURE A-8. 10. That the Revisionist one had also in himself

submitted

application

prescribed

proforma IV for submission of certificate of Medical qualifications, registrations and

statement regarding medical practice to the CDM, North West District, Delhi Govt

Dispensary Delhi-110085

Building, for

Rohini

Sector drive

13,

anti-quackery

strengthening of surveillance work and given his full particulars thereto. The copy of the same is annexed as Annexure A-9. 11. That as a result of the aforementioned

submission, an inspection on 18.04.2009 was carried out by Dr. Kusum Lata CMO, Delhi

Govt Dispensary, Model Town-I, Delhi-110009 and the inspection report dated 21.04.2009 was submitted wherein it was clearly stated that the Revisionist was not found

dispensing any allopathic medicines and was doing physiotherapy and acupressure

practice. The copy of the same is annexed as Annexure A-10. 12. That from the aforementioned notice of the Complainant and the newspaper article, the Revisionist has been able to gather that the major substance of the complaint against him rests on the alleged practice of allopathic system of medicines by him. 13. That the Revisionist has not practiced any form of allopathic system of medicine at any point of time nor has prescribed any drugs under the same system ever.

14. That the practice methodology, diagnosis and prescription conform to sheet his of by the of Revisionist practice which are and not

area

suggestions

supplements

sole property of any one system of medicine or even physicians. 15. That the results of alternate system of

medicine vary from person to person and may not always work to the satisfaction to

everyone. 16. That the Complainant Council has acted in haste vested and vendetta on and the to basis of some the

complaints

protect

commercial interests of its members. 17. That the Revisionist has been exonerated by the enquiry conducted by the Police as above and the present complaint is devoid of any merit. GROUNDS: 1. That the Ld. ACMM was not apprised of the communication dated 30.03.2012 by the

Complainant wherein the Addl Commissioner of Police, Special Investigating Team, Crime

Branch, Delhi Police, following a complaint by Indian Medical an association, against had the

instituted

enquiry

Revisionist

and

nothing

incriminating

came

on record against him during the same and all his certificates were verified and found correct. It was also clarified that his

practice of alternate medicine is legal. 2. That the Ld. ACMM has passed the impugned order in a severely mechanical manner

without appreciating the complete facts from the application of the Complainant. 3. That the Ld. ACMM has failed to appreciate that the complaint against the Revisionist does not discloses any cognizable offence

against him. 4. That the Ld. ACMM has failed to observe or appreciate Complaint. 5. That the Learned MM has passed the order on the basis of conjectures his and surmises mind of and the the real premises behind the

without without

applying going

judicial the details

into

Complaint. 6. That the complaint of the Petitioner does not discloses cognizable offences against

the Revisionist which requires investigation or registration of a First Information

Report.

7.

That it is a settled proposition of Law that whenever in the facts and circumstances of a given case, the Court should direct

investigation by the Police only where the assistance of the Investigating Agency is

necessary and the Court feels that the cause of justice is likely to suffer in the

absence of investigation by the Police PRAYER It is therefore most respectfully

prayed that: a) This Honble Court may be pleased to stay the order of Honble Ld. ACMM issued u/s 156(3) CrPC till the disposal of the petition. b) This Honble Court may also be further pleased to quash the order of Honble Ld. ACMM issued u/s 156(3) CrPC of the and dismiss the instant of

application

Complaint

u/s

156(3)

Criminal Procedure Code. c) This Honble Court order as may it also may pass fit any and

other/further

deem

proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, to meet the ends of justice. Delhi Through Date: Satyendra Mishra, Advocate Kushagra & Sarthak Law Firm Petitioner/Revisionist