Himachal Pradesh High Court
Amit Kumar vs Maneesh Srivastava on 10 March, 2026
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2026:HHC:6522
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CrMMO Nos.64 and 65 of 2017
Date of Decision: 10.3.2026
.
_____________________________________________________________________
1. CrMMO No. 64 of 2017
Amit Kumar
.........Petitioner
Versus
Maneesh Srivastava
.......Respondent
of
2. CrMMO No. 65 of 2017
Amit Kumar
.........Petitioner
rt Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
.......Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): Respondent expired in CrMMO No. 64 of
2017
Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr.
B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General
with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
General.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Since common questions of facts and law are involved in both
the above captioned cases, same were heard together and are being
disposed of vide common order.
::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:29:58 :::CIS
2 2026:HHC:6522
2. Precisely, facts of the case, relevant for adjudication of the case
at hand, are that petitioner after having passed degree of MBBS in
.
September 1999 got himself registered with Himachal Pradesh State
Medical Council vide registration certificate (Annexure P-2). After his being
registered with the afore State Medical Council, petitioner started running
Ultrasound Clinic in the name and style of Dev Bhumi Medical Centre at
of
Kullu. One Sh. Maneesh Srivastava i.e. respondent/complainant (herein
after referred to as “complainant”) in CrMMO No. 64 of 2017, lodged a
rt
complaint (Annexure P-3) under Section 28 of PC&PNDT Act, 1994 read
with Section 200 of Cr.PC, against the petitioner for his having allegedly
committed offence punishable under Sections 4, 5, 6, 23, 25 & 29, Rules 9
& 18 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques
(Prohibition Of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 & Rules framed thereunder read
with Sections 166, 167, 204, 109 and 34 of IPC and the provisions of
Prevention Of Corruption Act, in the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that in
the year 2014, he came to know from various reliable sources that
petitioner-accused (in short “accused”) is not only acting in gross violation
of provisions of PC & PNDT Act and rules framed thereunder, but he is also
involved in determination of the sex of fetus. He alleged that in the first
week of October 2014, he came in possession of one ultrasound report
::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:29:58 :::CIS
3 2026:HHC:6522
dated 11.3.2014 of one pregnant woman namely Ms. Ranjeeta, aged 26
years, who was referred by Dr. Geeta, pertaining to Ultrasound Clinic of
.
the accused i.e. Dev Bhumi Medical Centre. The Ultrasound report
contained; (i) Original Thermal Print of USG image (with the text printed as
-” Dev Bhumi Medical GE conducted on 11.03.2014 at 12:51:03 PM”; (ii)
Original Report containing signatures/initials with remarks as ‘Dr. Amit
of
Kumar, MBBS, DMRD’ and (iii) Original printed Envelope with text as Dev
Bhumi Medical Centre.
3.
rt
After receipt of afore information, complainant applied for
aforesaid information under RTI Act, whereby he sought certified copies of
consolidated summary of records (Form-F) of Ultrasound Centers
functioning in Kullu Town for the period starting from February 2014 to
May 2014. In response to aforesaid RTI, complainant was provided certified
records of monthly report of ultrasonography, registered centre wise of eight
ultrasound centers of Kullu Town including Dev Bhumi Medical Centre,
owned and possessed by the accused. Perusal of report of Dev Bhumi
Medical Centre reveals that in the month of March 2014, afore clinic
conducted/ performed as many as 68 ultrasounds, however, out of 68
ultrasound reports, there is not a single report, which finds mention of any
serial number or date on it. Complainant further alleged that he could not
::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:29:58 :::CIS
4 2026:HHC:6522
find mention / details of any patient in the name of Ms. Ranjeeta (referred
by Dr. Geeta) in all of the 74 entries of ultrasounds conducted/performed
.
in Dev Bhumi Medical Centre of accused in March 2014, however
signatures appearing in the ultrasound report dated 11.3.2014 of Ms.
Ranjeeta and monthly report on ultrasonogrpahy registered centre wise of
march 2014 are one and the same.
of
4. In nutshell, complainant alleged that accused had conducted
ultrasound of Ms. Ranjita on 11.3.2014, and did not keep the record of the
rt
same. He further alleged that during March 2014, more particularly, on
11.3.2014, Dev Bhumi Medical Centre being run by accused was put under
temporary suspension w.e.f. 4.3.2014 to 29.3.2014. If it is so, no
ultrasounds, otherwise, could have been conducted in the afore clinic on
11.3.2014. Complainant alleged that petitioner not only conducted
ultrasounds in Dev Bhumi Medical Centre during the period when
registration of afore clinic had expired, but he also did not furnish
particulars about the patients on Form-F which act of him is in violation of
Section 4 (3) 5 (i) (b) and Section 29 of the Act.
5. After filing of the aforesaid private complaint at the behest of
the complainant Manish Srivastava, respondent-State also filed complaint
No. 106-1/2016 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kullu,
::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:29:58 :::CIS
5 2026:HHC:6522
leveling therein similar allegations as contained in the complaint of
Maneesh Srivastava. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, took
.
cognizance of allegations leveled in the complaint filed by complainant as
well as respondent-State and issued process against the accused. In the
afore background, petitioner accused has approached this Court in the
instant proceedings for quashing of complaint filed by the complainant as
of
well as respondent-State as also consequent proceedings pending in the
competent court of law.
6.
rt
Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted
in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate, is that
proceedings under relevant provision of law have been initiated against the
accused on false grounds. While referring to notice of suspension of
Ultrasound Clinic (Annexure P-4 in CrMMO No. 64 of 2017), Mr. Thakur
states that vide aforesaid communication, registration of Ultrasound Clinic
being owned and possessed by the petitioner was suspended temporarily
till he submits the required registration with Himachal Pradesh State
Medical Council. He states that accused submitted the registration of
degree/diploma with State Medical Council to the Chief Medical Officer,
Kullu, vide communication dated 7.3.2014 (Annexure P-5), on the basis of
which, Chief Medical Officer Kullu, vide communication dated 29.3.2014
::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:29:58 :::CIS
6 2026:HHC:6522
revoked the suspension of Ultrasound Clinic. He states that since
petitioner had submitted the registration document on 7.3.2014, no
.
illegality otherwise can be said to have been committed by the petitioner by
conducting ultrasound of one patient namely Ranjeeta on 11.3.2014. To
substantiate his aforesaid argument, Mr. Thakur, specifically referred to
communication dated 4.3.2014, whereby notice of suspension and
of
Ultrasound Clinic registration was issued. He submitted that as per
aforesaid communication, registration of Ultrasound Clinic was suspended
Council. He
rt
temporary till he submits the required registration with the State Medical
stated that though suspension was revoked vide
communication dated 29.3.2014 but since it stood specifically mentioned in
order dated 4.3.2014 that registration of Ultrasound Clinic shall remain
suspended till the submission of required registration with State Medical
Council, which was submitted on 7.3.2014, no case much less case under
afore provisions of law is made out against the accused and as such, prayer
made by the accused for quashing of FIR deserves to be allowed. While
referring to Form-F (Annexure P-7 in CrMMO No. 64 of 2017), Mr. Thakur,
learned counsel for the petitioner stated that complete information with
regard to patient namely Ranjeeta was submitted in Form-F well within
time. He submitted that since afore document was made available much
prior to filing of the complaint sought to be quashed, but yet authority
::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:29:58 :::CIS
7 2026:HHC:6522
concerned ignored the same and proceeded to initiate the complaint against
the petitioner. Mr. Thakur submitted that since for the submissions made
.
herein above, case of the prosecution is likely to fail in all probabilities,
there is no reason to put the accused to ordeal of protracted trial, which
shall ultimately fail.
7. To the contrary, Mr. Anish Banshtu, learned Deputy Advocate
of
General, while justifying the issuance of summoning order on the basis of
complaint lodged by the respondent/complainant as well as respondent-
rt
State, submitted that once it is not in dispute that suspension was revoked
vide communication dated 29.3.2014, there was otherwise no occasion, if
any, for the petitioner to conduct ultrasound of any patient on 11.3.2014.
He submitted that since registration of Ultrasound Clinic run by the
petitioner was suspended vide communication dated 4.3.2014 and same
came to be revoked on 4.3.2014, any ultrasound conducted throughout
4.3.2014 to 29.3.2014, shall be deemed to be in violation of afore provisions
of law. If it is so, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the
learned trial Court while issuing process and entertaining the complaint
lodged at the behest of respondent/complainant and respondent-State.
8. Before ascertaining the genuineness and correctness of the
submissions and counter submissions having been made by the learned
::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:29:58 :::CIS
8 2026:HHC:6522
counsel for the parties vis-Ã -vis prayer made in the instant petition, this
Court deems it necessary to discuss/elaborate the scope and competence of
.
this Court to quash the criminal proceedings while exercising power under
Section 482 of Cr.PC.
9. Hon’ble Apex Court in judgment titled State of Haryana and
others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid
of
down several principles, which govern the exercise of jurisdiction of High
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Before pronouncement of aforesaid
rt
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, a three-Judge Bench of
Hon’ble Court in State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and others,
1977 (2) SCC 699, held that the High Court is entitled to quash a
proceeding, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to
continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of
justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. Relevant para is
being reproduced herein below:-
“7….In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is
entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that
allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process
of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding
ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court’s inherent powers,
both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary
public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:29:58 :::CIS
9 2026:HHC:6522permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.
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. The ends of justice are higher
than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administeredaccording to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity
for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of
the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the 59of
inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State
and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and
contours of that salient jurisdiction.”
rt
10. Subsequently, Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), has
elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Subsequently, Hon’ble Apex Court in Vineet Kumar and Ors. v. State of
U.P. and Anr., while considering the scope of interference under Sections
397 Cr.PC and 482 Cr.PC, by the High Courts, has held that High Court is
entitled to quash a proceeding, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing
the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or
that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to quashed. The
Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that the saving of the High Court’s
inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a
salutary public purpose i.e. a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to
degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In the aforesaid
::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:29:58 :::CIS
10 2026:HHC:6522
case, the Hon’ble Apex Court taking note of seven categories, where power
can be exercised under Section 482 Cr.PC, as enumerated in Bhajan Lal
.
(supra), i.e. where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
malafides 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, quashed the proceedings.
of
11. Hon’ble Apex Court in Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of
Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293, while drawing strength from its earlier
rt
judgment titled as Rajiv Thapar and Ors v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3
SCC 330, has reiterated that High Court has inherent power under Section
482 Cr.PC., 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 charge, but such power must always be used with
caution, care and circumspection. While invoking its inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 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 and the material adduced on record itself overrules the
veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the
prosecution/complainant. The material relied upon by the accused should
be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn
::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:29:58 :::CIS
11 2026:HHC:6522
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 Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would
prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. In the
aforesaid judgment titled Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013)
9 SCC 293, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:-
of
“22. The proposition of law, pertaining to quashing of criminal
proceedings, initiated against an accused by a High Court under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to
rt
as “the Cr.P.C.”) has been dealt with by this Court in Rajiv Thapar &
Ors. vs. Madan Lal Kapoor wherein this Court inter alia held asunder: (2013) 3 SCC 330, paras 29-30)
29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of
the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., if it chooses to
quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at thestage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the
stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before thecommencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would
naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in theHigh Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to
hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, itwould 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 of the Cr.P.C. 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::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:29:58 :::CIS
12 2026:HHC:6522defence 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 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
of
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
rt
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 of the Cr.P.C. 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 quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power
vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:-
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
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.
::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:29:58 :::CIS
13 2026:HHC:6522
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 ofjustice?
30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial
conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash suchof
criminal – proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to
the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise
rt
be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising
therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would notconclude in the conviction of the accused.”
12. Hon’ble Apex Court in Asmathunnisa v. State of A.P. (2011)
11 SCC 259, has held as under:
“12. This Court, in a number of cases, has laid down the scope and
ambit of the High Court’s power under section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure. Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C.
though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great
caution and only when such exercise is justified 9 by the tests
specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the courtexists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process
leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the
Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent
powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute.
::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:29:58 :::CIS
14 2026:HHC:6522
13. The law has been crystallized more than half a century ago in the
case of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 wherein this
Court has summarized some categories of cases where inherent.
power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings. This
Court summarized the following three broad categories where the
High Court would be justified in exercise of its powers under section482:
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against
the institution or continuance of the proceedings;
of
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or
complaint taken at their face value and accepted in theirrtentirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence but there is no
legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly ormanifestly fails to prove the charge.”
14.In Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others
(1976) 3 SCC 736, according to the court, the process against the
accused can be quashed or set aside :
“(1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the
statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the sametaken at their face value make out absolutely no case against
the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essentialingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused;
(2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patentlyabsurd and inherently improbable so that no 10 prudent person
can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused;
(3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing
process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:29:58 :::CIS
15 2026:HHC:6522
no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or
inadmissible; and
(4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects,
.
such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally
competent authority and the like”.
15. This court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Others
(1977) 2 SCC 699, observed that the wholesome power under section
482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it
comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue
of
would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of
justice requires that the proceedings ought to be quashed. The High
Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and
rt
criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A Court
proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of
harassment or persecution. In this case, the court observed that ends
of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must
be administered according to laws made by the Legislature. This case
has been followed in a large number of subsequent cases of this
court and other courts.”
13. Hon’ble Apex Court in Asmathunnisa (supra) has categorically
held that where discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is
capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on
materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and where the
complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of
sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the
::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:29:58 :::CIS
16 2026:HHC:6522
like, High Court would be justified in exercise of its powers under Section
482 CrPC.
.
14. From the bare perusal of aforesaid exposition of law, it is quite
apparent that while exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC.,
High Court can proceed to quash the proceedings, if it comes to the
conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of
of
process of the law.
15. Now being guided by the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble
rt
Apex Court, this court would make an endeavour to find out “whether
proceedings initiated at the behest of complainant as well as
respondent/complainant can be quashed and set-aside or not?”
16. Though in the case at hand, number of allegations came to be
leveled against the accused, but if complaints having been filed by
respondent/complainant as well as respondent-State are perused in
conjunction, precise allegation against the accused is that he conducted
ultrasound of one patient namely Ranjeeta on 11.3.2014 on which date,
Dev Bhumi Medical Centre was not having registration. Besides above,
there is allegation that while conducting ultrasound of afore person,
accused failed to fill up Form-F, which was mandatory as per Act and
Rules.
::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:29:58 :::CIS
17 2026:HHC:6522
17. Pleadings as well as documents adduced on record by the
respective parties clearly reveal that till 4.3.2014, petitioner herein, who
.
was actually handling the ultrasound machine in the afore clinic had
registration with State Medical Council Himachal Pradesh, which is
mandatory as per Chapter 3, Section 15(7) of State Medical Council Act,
2003 of Himachal Pradesh. Otherwise also, perusal of reply filed at the
of
behest of respondent-State nowhere disputes factum with regard to
registration of the petitioner prior to afore date. At this stage, it would be
rt
apt to take note of communication dated 4.3.2014 (Annexure P-4), which
reads as under:
“With reference to this office letter number HFW/KLU/PC &
PNDT/2012 1506-1527 dated 20/01/2014, it is submitted that after
six weeks of that letter you had failed to submit the registration ofdoctor handling ultrasound machine, with State Medical Council
Himachal Pradesh which is mandatory as per chapter 3 Section 15(7)
of State Medical council Act, 2003 of Himachal Pradesh.
As this office has not received registration of Doctor in State Medical
Council of HP you are hereby directed to stop doing the ultrasound
from today immediately and your registration of ultrasound clinic is
hereby suspended temporary till you submit the required registrationwith State Medical Council HP. Non compliance of these orders will
invite the cancellation of registration of your ultrasound Clinic and
legal action will be taken against you in accordance of law.
Till then you are further directed to deposit back the registration
certificate to the undersigned in person immediately.”
::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:29:58 :::CIS
18 2026:HHC:6522
18. Careful perusal of afore communication reveals that time was
granted to the petitioner to submit registration of doctor handling
.
ultrasound machine with State Medical Council, but since he failed to do
the same within six weeks, District Appropriate Authority cum Chief
Medical Officer, Kullu, vide communication dated 4.3.2014, served him
notice of suspension of ultrasound clinic registration. As per aforesaid
of
communication, registration of Ultrasound Clinic was suspended
temporarily till the submission of required registration with the State
rt
Medical Council, Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner also came to be apprised
with regard to aforesaid communication that non-compliance of order dated
4.3.2014, would invite cancellation of registration of ultrasound and clinic,
meaning thereby on 4.3.2014, there was no dispute, if any, with regard to
registration of Ultrasound clinic, rather dispute is with regard to
registration of doctor handling the said Clinic. Otherwise also, reply filed
by the respondents nowhere suggests that petitioner had not got registered
its Clinic under Act and rules. In nutshell case of the private respondents
as well as respondent-State is that after 4.3.2014 till revocation of
suspension vide order dated 29.3.2014, petitioner herein had no authority,
whatsoever, to conduct ultrasound in his clinic.
19. Allegedly on 11.3.2014, petitioner being handler of the
Ultrasound Clinic namely Dev Bhumi Medical Centre, conducted
::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:29:58 :::CIS
19 2026:HHC:6522
ultrasound of one patient namely Ranjeeta. Since on afore date, petitioner-
accused was not authorized to conduct registration on account of his not
.
being registered with State Medical Council, he is liable to be prosecuted
under the afore provision of law. As per accused, he immediately after
having received notice of suspension dated 4.3.2014 had submitted
communication dated 7.3.2014 to CMO Kullu, thereby apprising him with
of
regard to his registration with Himachal Pradesh Medical Council
(Annexures P-2 and P-5 in CrMMO No. 64/2017).
20.
rt
Question which needs determination in the case at hand, is
“whether suspension order dated 4.3.2014, issued by the Chief Medical
Officer Kullu, was in force till its revocation vide order dated 29.3.2014 or
petitioner could have conducted the ultrasound immediately after his
having submitted registration with the Himachal Pradesh State Medical
Council. Careful perusal of notice of suspension dated 4.3.2014, clearly
suggests that registration of Ultrasound Clinic of the petitioner was
suspended temporary till submission of the required registration with the
State Medical Council. Since petitioner despite various notices failed to
make available certificate with regard to his registration with State Medical
Council, notice dated 4.3.2014, came to be issued to him, however, careful
perusal of afore notice clearly suggests that as and when, registration with
the State Medical Council is submitted to the competent authority,
::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:29:58 :::CIS
20 2026:HHC:6522
suspension ordered vide communication dated 4.3.2014, shall stand
revoked. No doubt, in the case at hand, formal order of revocation of
.
suspension came to be issued vide communication dated 29.3.2014
(Annexure P-6 in CrMMO No. 65 of 2017), but having carefully perused
communication dated 4.3.2014 this court is persuaded to agree with Mr.
Nitin Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner herein was
of
directed to stop conducting ultrasound from the date of issuance of
communication dated 4.3.2014, till submission of required registration with
(Annexure P-5),
rt
the State Medical Council. Since vide communication dated 7.3.2014
petitioner apprised CMO Kullu, with regard to his
registration with State Medical Council, no illegality can be said to have
been committed by the petitioner for his having done ultrasound of the
patient named herein above, on 11.3.2014. Once petitioner himself vide
communication dated 4.3.2014 had apprised the authority concerned with
regard to his registration with the State Medical Council and copy of
registration was also made available, afore authority was otherwise under
obligation to revoke the suspension order forthwith.
21. Though in the case at hand, order of revocation was issued on
29.3.2014 but at the cost of repetition, as observed herein above,
suspension stood automatically revoked with the submission of required
registration with the State Medical Council on 7.3.2014. Similarly, this
::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:29:58 :::CIS
21 2026:HHC:6522
Court finds that Form-F though was not made available at the time of
issuance of notice dated 4.3.2014, but same was made available much
.
prior to filing of the complaint by private respondent or respondent-State.
Otherwise also, communication dated 4.3.2014, nowhere specifically talks
about non-submission of Form-F. Since prior to filing of the complaint,
Form-F containing therein details of patient named herein above, was
of
submitted by the petitioner, no complaint, if any, on afore count could
have been filed against him. Since in view of the facts as well as discussion
rt
made herein above, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Nitin Thakur,
learned counsel for the petitioner that prosecution lodged against the
petitioner will not succeed, rather for the reasons given herein above shall
fail in all probabilities, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing
of complaint deserves to be considered and allowed.
22. Having scanned the entire evidence, this Court has no
hesitation to conclude that, no case much less under the aforesaid
provisions of law can be said to have been made against the petitioner.
Since for the facts as well as discussion made herein above, case of the
prosecution is likely to fail in any eventuality, this Court finds the case at
hand to be a fit case for exercising power under Section 482 CrPC to quash
complaint as well as consequent proceedings. If prayer made in the instant
petition is not accepted, petitioner would be unnecessarily subjected to
::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:29:58 :::CIS
22 2026:HHC:6522
ordeal of the protracted trial, which is otherwise bound to culminate in
acquittal of the accused.
.
23. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law
laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), present petitions are allowed
and complaint Nos. 106-1/2016 as well as 206-1/2016 pending
adjudication before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kullu, as well as
of
consequent proceedings are quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of
the charges framed against him. The petitions stand disposed of in the
March 10, 2026
rt
aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications.
(Sandeep Sharma),
(manjit) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2026 20:29:58 :::CIS