CRM-M-23804-2017 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 121 CRM-M-23804-2017 Reserved on : 08.09.2026 Pronounced on :10.09.2026 Uploaded on : 10.09.2026 DR. OM BADHAN .... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. ....RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Jaivir Yadav, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tapan Kumar Yadav, Advocate, and Mr. Sakeel Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab. Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harkirat Singh Randhawa, Advocate and Mr. Anish Kansal, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral) The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is for quashing of the complaint filed by respondent No.2 bearing No.53/1/15 dated 21.04.2015 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 326, 324, 504, 506, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC, the summoning order dated 30.10.2015 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur, District Jalandhar, whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be summoned under Section 120-B of IPC, the order dated 12.04.2017 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent KUSUM 2026.09.10 20:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-23804-2017 2 No.2-Balwinder Singh (hereinafter known as respondent No.2) has filed a complaint under Section 326, 324, 504, 506 and 120-B of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC with the allegations that accused Amandeep Singh, Lovepreet Singh and Rajvir Singh assaulted him and thereafter, in conspiracy with accused No.4 namely Dr. Om Badhan (petitioner), Medical Officer, PHC, Bara Pind, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar, got prepared a fabricated MLR of respondent No.2 so as to benefit the accused persons. A copy of the said complaint is attached as Annexure P-1 to the petition. The relevant extract of the same enumerating the role of the petitioner reads as under:- “5. that complainant and his wife came back to home and thereafter the wife of the complainant agreed to take the complainant to PHC Bara Pind where the examined on complainant was medicolegally 13.05.2014 at about 5:00 pm. Complainant was examined by Dr Om Badhan, at to 3 in the Medical Officer posted PHC Bara Pind. However later on, it came to the notice of the complainant that accused no 1 meanwhile may have approached the said Dr Om Badhan to favour them, hence the said Doctor did not conduct the complete medical examination of the Complainant nor the MLR was correctly prepared. It shows that accused have done the wrongful acts against the complainant in furtherance of common intention. It also transpires out of the documents that there appears to be criminal conspiracy between accused no 1 to 3 and the accused no. 4 Om a Badhan for not correctly preparing the medicolegal report. Hence all the accused have done wrong and illegal acts which fall under section 326,324,504,506, 120-B read with section 34 IPC. KUSUM 2026.09.10 20:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-23804-2017 3 3. Based on the aforementioned complaint and the preliminary evidence recorded, the petitioner along with his co-accused, came to be summoned vide order dated 30.10.2015 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur. A copy of the said order is attached as Annexure P-2 to the present petition. The relevant extract of the same is as under:- “3. In his preliminary evidence complainant Balwinder Singh himself stepped into the witness box as CW-1, further examined his wife Simrandeep Kaura as CW-2, Dr Om Badhan Medical Officer as CW-3, Kiran Bala radiographer as CW- 4, Dr Balwinder Singh Kahlon as CW-5 and closed his preliminary evidence. 5. Cw-1 Balwinder Singh complainant stepped into witness box and narrated in verbatim of the averment made in the complaint and proved on the file copy of MLR Ex. C-1, Copy of application moved to the SSP, Rural Jalandhar Ex. C-2, Copy of application moved to the Civil Surgen Ex.C-3, copy of application sent to the Director Health Ex.C-4, Apllication moved to the SSP Rural Jalandhar by the wife of the complainant namely Simrandep Kaur Ex.C-5, letter no 329 dated 24.09.2014 from Senior Medical Officer PHC Bara Pind to Balwinder Singh Ex.C-6, bed head ticket of complainant Ex.C-7, photocopy of OPD slip Ex.C-8, photocopy of receipt regarding charging of Rs. 60 as Ex. C-9, photocopy of prescription slip Ex.C-10, Receipt regarding receiving of Rs.120 Ex.C-11, attested copy of case history of complainant Ex.C-12, photocopy of charging Rs 355 Ex.C-13, receipt regarding attested copy of document i.e. Physical Examination Ex.C-14, Informed consent Ex.C-15, attested copy of OT notes KUSUM 2026.09.10 20:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-23804-2017 4 Ex.C-16, Anaesthesia notes Ex.C-17, documents regarding treatment Ec.C-18, Doctor's notes Ex.C-19, documents regarding treatment Ex.C-20, attested copy of Doctor notes Ex.C-21, ward intake-output chart Ex.C- 22, attested copy doctor's notes Ex.C-23, attested copy of request moved by the police to the doctor Ex.C- 24, attested copy of attendance of the staff of PHC Bara Pind Ex.C-25, Ex.C-26, copy of order dated 19.01.2015 passed by honourable Punjab and Haryana High Court Ex.C-27. CW-2 Simrandeep Kaur etewitness has fully corroborated and supported the version of the complainant. CW-3 Dr Om Badhan proved on the file copy of MLR of complainant Balwinder Singh Ex.C-1, pictorial diagram Ex.C-1-A, Photocopy of investigation proforma (x-ray) Ex.28, Injury report Ex.C-29, another injury report Ex.C-30, photocopy of investigation proforma (x-ray) Ex.C-31, OPD slip Ex.C-32, x-ray films Ex.C-33. CW-4 Kiran Bala radiographer has proved on the file injury report Ex.C-29, another injury report Ex.C-30, photocopy of investigation proforma (x-ray) Ex.C-31, OPD slip Ex.C-32, x-ray films Ex.33. CW-5 Dr Balwinder Singh Kahlon has proved on the file copy MLR of complainant Balwinder Ex.C-1, pictorial diagram Ex.C-1-A, bed head ticket of complainant Ex.C- 7, photocopy of OPd slip Ex.C-8, Photocopy of receipt regarding charging of Rs. 60 as Ex.C-9, photocopy of prescription slip Ex.C-10, receipt regarding receiving Rs 120 Ex. C-11, attested copy case history of complainant Ex.C-12, photocopy of receipt regarding charging of Rs 355 Ex.C-13, attested copy of the documents that is physical examination Ex.C-14, informed consent Ex.C- 15, attested copy of OT notes Ex.C-16, anaesthesia notes Ex.C-17, documents regarding treatment Ex.C-18, KUSUM 2026.09.10 20:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-23804-2017 5 doctor's Ex.C-19, documents regarding treatment Ex. C- 20, attested copy of doctor's notes Ex.C-21, ward intake output chart Ex.C- 22, attested copy of doctor's notes Ex.C-23, attested copy of request moved by the police to the doctor Ex.C-24, attested copy of attendance of the staff of PHC Bara Pind Ex.C-25, Ex.C-26 photocopy of investigation proforma (x-ray), Ex.C-28, injury report Ex.C-29, another injury report Ex.C-30. 6. From the perusal of the complaint and the testimony of the complainant Balwinder Singh coupled with testimony CW-2 Simrandeep Kaur and CW-3 Dr Om Badhan who has specifically stated that as per report Ex.C-29 there is bony cut on the left arm near the wrist CW-4 Kiran Bala CW-5 radiograoher and Dr Balwinder Singh Kahlon, it is evident that the accused person have committed the offence no 1 to no 3 punishable u/s 326, 324, 506, 34 and 120-B of IPC. However accused no. 4 Dr Om Badhan is ordered to be summoned u/s 120-B of IPC. 7. In view of above said discussion as well as evidence lead by complainant witnesses, accused person no 1 to 3 have prima facie committed an offence under 326, 324, 506, 34, 120-B of IPC and accused no 4 prima facie committed an offence under section 120-B of IPC. Accordingly accused are ordered to be summoned for on filing of PF and list of witness on 11.12.2015.” 4. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar which came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.04.2017. A copy of the said order is attached as Annexure P-3 to the petition. The relevant extract of the same is as under:- KUSUM 2026.09.10 20:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-23804-2017 6 “11. it is evident on record that there are two contradictory reports with respect to nature of injury on the person of respondent. On 16.05.2014, when petitioner conducted examination and x-ray of respondent, no fracture was seen. Whereas in the second x-ray examination, conducted on 23.05.2014, fracture was noticed as there is no denial on a the part of petitioner that he has conducted medical examination of respondent on 16.05.2014, therefore one fact stands established on record that fracture, noticed on 23.05.2014, has not been observed by the petitioner in his medical examination on 16.05.2014. the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that fracture was later on procured by the respondent when he (respondent) left hospital against medical advice on 20.05.2014, are preliminary not supported by documents. Although document Ex C-3 contains request of respondent that he may be allowed to go home, but this document itself is doubtful, because one endorsement dated 01.06.2014 has been appended prior to alleged request of respondent, which is of 20.05.2014. 12. undisputedly, in view provision contained in section 397 of code of criminal procedure, while deciding a revision petition the court cannot sit over the impugned orders as appellate court and it can interfere in findings of trial court only, if there is dispute with respect to correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, as provided under. In the present case as there is sufficient evidence on record to primarily conclude that he failed to observe fracture on 16.05.2014, therefore the allegation of respondent that petitioner has conspired with assailant cannot be discarded at this stage. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that it KUSUM 2026.09.10 20:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-23804-2017 7 cannot be said that learned trial court has issued process against petitioner without any material on record. As the alleged overt act do not fall within the ambit of discharge of official duty, hence this court is further of the opinion that prior sanction to prosecute petitioner is not required in this case. Although, petitioner has mentioned a couple of citation in his written arguments, but the same have not been supplied to court. Even otherwise, this court has already observed that sanction is not required in this case. Filing of application by the respondent, against the petitioner before his department has no direct concern with present case and as such even if the allegation of respondent is false it has no effect on the merits of the present case.” 5. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is absolutely no evidence of his being in conspiracy with the other accused to prepare an incorrect medical report of the respondent No.2. In fact, the petitioner had deposed as CW-3 and had brought on record the MLR of respondent No.2-Balwinder Singh Ex.C1. One Kiran Bala, Radiographer, who had conducted the X-ray examination on the person of Balwinder Singh, was examined as CW-4. Once the petitioner was cited as a complainant’s witness, the question of him being summoned as an accused does not arise. On merits, he contends that initially, Balwinder Singh was subjected to X-ray examination by Radiographer Kiran Bala and the said report was produced before the Medical Board comprising Dr. Om Badhan (petitioner), Dr. Bhuvnish Sharda and Dr. Amanjyoti. The said Board KUSUM 2026.09.10 20:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-23804-2017 8 opined that the X-ray film be sent to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar for radiological opinion. However, the respondent No.2 left against medical advice. Later, yet another X-ray examination took place, which was conducted by Radiographer, Kiran Bala. The said report was put up before the petitioner and the petitioner opined that the injury could be caused by a friendly weapon and was suggestive of a fabricated injury. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the opinion of the petitioner was false or that it was given in conspiracy with the other accused, without there being any evidence of the same. Surprisingly, the Revisional Court has come to the conclusion that it was the petitioner who conducted the medico-legal examination and the X-ray of the injured, which is completely contrary to the record, inasmuch as the petitioner did not conduct either of the X-ray examination. He, therefore, prays that the complaint, summoning order and the order in revision, along with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, be quashed qua the petitioner only. 6. The learned Senior counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, contends that the offence against the petitioner is prima facie made out, and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsels for the parties. 8. A perusal of the first report Ex.C-28 (Annexure P-4) would reveal that the Board of Doctors, of which the petitioner was a part, only opined that the first X-ray examination film be sent to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar for radiological opinion. However, the respondent No.2 never produced any such opinion of the Civil Hospital, Jalandhar. Thereafter, when the second X-ray examination took place, the said report was put up KUSUM 2026.09.10 20:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh CRM-M-23804-2017 9 before the petitioner, wherein he opined that the injury was suggestive of a friendly hand, and therefore, was a fabricated injury. Pertinently, the petitioner has not conducted any radiological examination of respondent No.2-Balwinder Singh, which has been conducted only by Kiran Bala/ CW-4. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the opinion, annexed as Annexure P-6, was given in conspiracy with the other accused or was incorrect and procured. 9. Keeping in view the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the continuance of the proceedings qua the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, the complaint dated 21.04.2015 (Annexure P-1), summoning order dated 30.10.2015 (Annexure P-2), order dated 12.04.2017 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. 10. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) 10.09.2026 JUDGE Kusum Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No KUSUM 2026.09.10 20:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh