Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5K views

    Revision Against Order in Application Us 156 (3) CRPC

    Uploaded by

    Sushil Shukla
    1. The document is a revision petition filed in court against an order passed by an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directing registration of an FIR against the petitioner on a complaint by the Delhi Medical Council. 2. The petitioner practices alternative medicine and holds various qualifications and registrations for the same. He denies practicing allopathic medicine as alleged in the complaint. 3. The petition argues that the police investigation has exonerated the petitioner and the complaint lacks merit, praying that the court quash the order directing an FIR.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Revision Against Order in Application Us 156 (3) CRPC

    Uploaded by

    Sushil Shukla
    5K views8 pages
    1. The document is a revision petition filed in court against an order passed by an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directing registration of an FIR against the petitioner on a complaint by the Delhi Medical Council. 2. The petitioner practices alternative medicine and holds various qualifications and registrations for the same. He denies practicing allopathic medicine as alleged in the complaint. 3. The petition argues that the police investigation has exonerated the petitioner and the complaint lacks merit, praying that the court quash the order directing an FIR.

    Original Description:

    Criminal law series. Reivision

    Original Title

    Revision Against Order in Application Us 156(3) Crpc

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The document is a revision petition filed in court against an order passed by an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directing registration of an FIR against the petitioner on a complaint by the Delhi Medical Council. 2. The petitioner practices alternative medicine and holds various qualifications and registrations for the same. He denies practicing allopathic medicine as alleged in the complaint. 3. The petition argues that the police investigation has exonerated the petitioner and the complaint lacks merit, praying that the court quash the order directing an FIR.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    5K views8 pages

    Revision Against Order in Application Us 156 (3) CRPC

    Uploaded by

    Sushil Shukla
    1. The document is a revision petition filed in court against an order passed by an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directing registration of an FIR against the petitioner on a complaint by the Delhi Medical Council. 2. The petitioner practices alternative medicine and holds various qualifications and registrations for the same. He denies practicing allopathic medicine as alleged in the complaint. 3. The petition argues that the police investigation has exonerated the petitioner and the complaint lacks merit, praying that the court quash the order directing an FIR.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 8

    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

    You might also like