1 2025:CGHC:44270-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1605 of 2025 Dr. Pravesh Kumar Shukla S/o Shri Gendlal Shukla Aged About 39 Years R/o Near Preet Ata Chakki, Shyam Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. - A.C.B./ E.O.W., Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Medical Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Commissioner, Medical Education, North Block, Sector-19, Swasthya Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Dean, Dau Kalyan Singh Post Graduate Institute And Research Center, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Hospital Superintendent Cum Academic Incharge D.K.S. Super Speciality Hospital, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr.Sandeep Dubey, Advocate For Respondents : Mr.Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.09.02 10:41:42 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 1.9.2025 1. Heard Mr.Sandeep Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayer: “ 1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Impugned FIR bearing No. 18/2025, P.S.- ACB/EOW dated 26.03.2025 u/s 467, 468, 471, 1120-B IPC r/w Sec. 7(C), 7(A) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and all proceedings emanating there from. 2. That, any other relief(s) which the Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper may kindly be pleased to granted in favour of the petitioners;” 3. Brief facts are necessary for the case are that on 11.08.2023, the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis Surgeon Gastroenterology under the Department of Gastroenterology at Dau Kalyan Singh Super Speciality Hospital Raipur. When the petitioner was working with due sincerity at Dau Kalyan Singh Super Speciality Hospital, Raipur, he was served with one show cause notice dated 01.07.2024, in which it was alleged that while performing his OPD duty dated 08.06.2024, one under trial accused named Anwar Dhebar (co-accused in present FIR) was brought from Jail for his medical treatment, in which he was referred from District Hospital, Raipur with endorsement for further 3 treatment. The main allegation in show cause notice was that while giving treatment at OPD being surgeon Gastroenterology, he referred the said patient to other Govt. Hospital/AIIMS, because G.I. endoscopy (Colonoscopy) instrument was not available in department. It was further stated that on the contrary, the instrument was available on 08.06.2024 and cases were examined, if the colonoscopy was not available at department, then he could have get it done from other department of Hospital rather than referring to other hospital. It was further stated that said conduct of the petitioner was an act of indiscipline and was in violation of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, and the petitioner was directed to give explanation that why legal action should be not taken against him. The petitioner herein duly replied to the said show cause notice and explained that adult colonoscopy is different from other endoscopy and also stated that he advised for CT Scan but due to high creatinine CT scan was not performed. It was specifically advised by the petitioner to the said patient to get medical gastroenterology opinion and colonoscopy to be done from any other Govt. Hospital or AIIMS, Raipur. However, vide order dated 08.08.2024, the services of the petitioner were terminated from the post of Assistant Professor, Gastroenterology Department DKS Super speciality Hospital Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. And also decided from investigation from Gol Bazar Police Station, Raipur for lodging FIR. 4 4. The petitioner sought information from the Respondent hospital under Right to Information, it was informed, that colonoscopy (Lower Gl Endoscopy) instrument not in working condition since year 2022 to till date. The Head of Department also informed that, since from 01/01/2024 to 31/08/2024 no adult colonoscopy test done. Further the petitioner obtained documents which relates to endoscopy and number of treatments of patients were done at relevant point of time from January 2024 to August 2024, that itself shows that no single treatment with relates to Lower GI Endoscopy (Colonoscopy) has been done at respondent Hospital. 5. Being aggrieved from the said dismissal order dated 08.08.2024, the petitioner herein filed WPS No. 8458 of 2024 before learned Single Judge of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 03.01.2025 has allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and quashed the termination order dated 08.08.2024. Despite the setting aside of the termination order dated 08.08.2024, the respondents were not permitting the petitioner to resume his duties. In the said circumstances, the petitioner herein was constrained to file a Contempt Petition No. 403 of 2025 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 26.03.2025 was pleased to issue notice in the Contempt Petition No. 403 of 2025. 6. To the utter shock of the petitioner, respondent No. 1 in most arbitrary and malafide manner, registered the FIR in Crime 5 No.18/2025 dated 26.03.2025 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC read with Section 7(C), 7(A) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner herein and one other accused person namely Anwar Dhebar (the patient examined by the petitioner). 7. The contents of FIR are self-illustrative of the fact that FIR has been registered on a concocted and false story to rope the petitioner herein in false case to coerce him to withdraw the contempt petition and not to pursue his remedies available in law. The basis of allegations made i.e. advised to get colonoscopy done from private hospital is complete false. The petitioner herein has advised the said patient to get his colonoscopy done from AIIMS, Raipur or any other govt. hospital. Hence, this petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is Super Specialist Doctor having degree of MBBS, MS (Surgery), Dr. NB (Doctorate of National Board Surgical Gastroenterology) Super Specialist course, he is renowned Doctor in the field of Gastroenterology surgeon. The petitioner is being victimised by the respondent State for ulterior reasons. He further submits that the petitioner was served with one show cause notice dated 01.07.2024, in which it was alleged that while performing his OPD duty dated 08.06.2024, one under trial accused named Anwar Dhebar (Co-accused in present FIR) was brought from Jail for his medical treatment, in which he was referred from District Hospital, 6 Raipur with endorsement for further treatment. The main allegation in show cause notice was that while giving treatment at OPD being surgeon Gastroenterology, he referred the said patient to other Govt. Hospital/AIIMS, because G.I. endoscopy (Colonoscopy) instrument was not available in department. It was further stated that on the contrary, the instrument was available on 08.06.2024 and 5 cases were examined, if the colonoscopy was not available at department, then he could have get it done from other department of Hospital rather than referring to other hospital. It was further alleged that said conduct of petitioner was an act of indiscipline and was in violation of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, and petitioner was directed to give explanation that why legal action should be not taken against him. The petitioner herein duly replied to the said show cause notice and explained that adult colonoscopy is different from other endoscopy and also stated that he advised for CT Scan but due to high creatinine, CT scan was not performed. It was specifically advised by the petitioner to the said patient to get medical gastroenterology opinion and colonoscopy tobe done from any other Govt. Hospital or AIIMS, Raipur. However, vide order dated 08.08.2024, the services of the petitioner were terminated from the post of Assistant Professor, Gastroenterology Department DKS Super speciality Hospital Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the RTI replies under Right to information act has crystal 7 clear stated that machine for colonoscopy in not working from last two years in the DSK Hospital and hence basis of alleged FIR that 5 other endoscopy was done holds no basis. Furthermore, the petitioner has specifically mentioned in his advice to get medical gastroenterology opinion and the colonoscopy done from the other Govt. Hospital or AIIMS Raipur. Hence there is no question of giving undue benefits to any patient (co-accused in FIR) in any manner. The respondent has falsely roped petitioner herein to shift blame of its failures of not having proper facilities in Govt. Hospitals. The FIR bearing Crime No. 18/2025 dated 26.03.2025 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC read with Section 7(C), 7(A) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is complete abuse of process of law by respondent No. 1 to arm twist and force the petitioner herein to stop seeking his legal remedies available in law. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed. 9. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents/State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that during investigation it is found that Dr. Pravesh Shukla was posted as Assistant Professor (contract) in the Department of Gastro Surgery at DKS Post Graduate and Research Center, DKS Bhawan, Raipur from 11.08.2023. In the OPD slip, Dr. Pravesh Shukla neither advised to get PR test, blood test, USG, CT done nor its usefulness was written in the OPD list. Without getting all these tests done, Dr. 8 Pravesh Shukla directly advised endoscopy/colonoscopy to Mr. Anwar Dhebar and in the OPD slip, Dr. Pravesh Shukla wrote that endoscopy/colonoscopy is not done in DKS Hospital. It is worth mentioning here that on 08.06.2024 itself, endoscopy of various patients from different departments of DKS was done, whereas DKS Hospital did not have any test done. Endoscopy could have been done in any department in the OT of the hospital. Dr. Pravesh Shukla wrote in the OPD slip that endoscopy/colonoscopy was not available in DKS Hospital and on the basis of false facts, he created a false document in the form of a slip and committed forgery and being a public servant, he performed his public duty in an improper and dishonest manner to obtain undue advantage and Mr. Anwar Dhebar, using his personal influence, made the public servant perform his public duty in an improper manner. Dr. Pravesh Shukla and Mr. Anwar Dhebar, by hatching a criminal conspiracy together, Dr. Pravesh Shukla, by giving improper and dishonest information in the OPD slip of Mr. Anwar Dhebar, provided Mr. Anwar Dhebar the facility to prepare a medical report for his own benefit by misusing his influence in any hospital other than the government hospital. He further submits that under the rules of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is necessary to obtain prior approval under Section 17 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act before starting investigation into any crime. In the case, prior approval has been obtained under Section 17 (a) for investigation of the crime on 9 12.06.2025 through the Sub Inspector/Senior Superintendent of Police. The investigation of the case is still in the initial stage. In the case, the statement of the Jail Guard, Chief Guard Warrant Branch (Undertrial Prisoner), the doctor treating the undertrial prisoner in judicial custody in Central Jail Raipur has been recorded and in relation to knowing the jail procedure, a notice has been issued to the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur to appear for the statement on 26.06.2025. Apart from this, correspondence has been made to the hospital superintendent and academic in-charge, DKS Post Graduate Institute and Research Center Raipur (CG) seeking information regarding the advice written by Dr. Pravesh Shukla in the OPD slip of the undertrial prisoner. As such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with these petitions. 11. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 laid down the broad principles where such power under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised, which are as under: - “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 10 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent 11 person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (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. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 12. The Supreme Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Sharma and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2016) 9 SCC 1 held as under:- “35. While discussing the scope and ambit of Section 482 of the Code, a similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Kal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 wherein it was held as under:- 12 “29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and 13 discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC: 30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled 14 against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? 30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arisingt therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 13. In the matter of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673, the Supreme Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of 15 Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. It was held as under: “12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.” (emphasis supplied) 14. Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), the Supreme Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 626, observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. 15. From perusal of the documents, it appears that the FIR does not disclose the ingredients of any cognizable offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC read with Section 7(C) & 7A of 16 the Prevention of the Corruption Act. It is just being used as a weapon of offence against the petitioner who is by profession the Doctor. Hence, the allegations made in the impugned FIR are absurd and do not constitute a cognizable offence. Even otherwise, learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 03.01.2025 has quashed the termination order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the respondent authorities. 16. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-stated judgments (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the allegations made in the FIR are inherently improbable and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the petitioner herein. In the case in hand, malicious prosecution was instituted by respondent No.1 against the petitioner. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned FIR registered in Crime No.18/2025 on 26.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) at Police Station EOW/ACB, Raipur for offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC read with Section 7(C) and 7(A) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner is hereby quashed. 18. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Sd/- /- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu