SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.133/2004 Dr. RK Khanna Vs. State & Anr. 1 S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.133/2004 Dr. R.K. Khanna vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : - 10.7.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Hemant Jain, for the petitioner. Mr.Chaitaniya Gehlot, for the complainant-respondent. Mr.VR Mehta, Public Prosecutor. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the trial court dated 12.9.2003 by which the trial court framed charges for the offence under Section 465, 468 IPC. However, the trial court discharged the petitioner-accused for charge under Section 420, 471 read with Section 120B IPC and the said order dated 12.9.2003 was upheld by the order of the revisional court dated 22.1.2004, hence, this misc. petition has been submitted by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Brief facts of the case are that on 8.9.1998 complainant Shyam Kanda, Chairman of Shri Sanatan Dharma Balika Senior Secondary School, Sri Ganganagar submitted a written report at Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.133/2004 Dr. RK Khanna Vs. State & Anr. 2 alleging that one Smt. Madhu Verma, teacher working in the complainant's above school submitted an application stating that she gave birth to a male child on 28.6.1993 and she sought maternity leave. Along with her leave application, a certificate issued by the petitinoer Dr. RK Khanna, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Vijaynagar (Ajmer) dated 25.6.1993 was annexed. Relying on this certificate issued by the petitioner, maternity leave for 90 days was granted to the said Smt. Madhu Verma. According to complainant, in fact Smt. Madhu Verma gave birth to the child on 26.5.1993 and the certificate issued by the petitioner is, therefore, a false certificate issued to cheat the institution by getting the benefit of maternity leave on the basis of false certificate otherwise, the said Smt. Madhu Verma could not get the salary of the period for which she did not work. The cognizance was taken and, thereafter, charge was framed by the trial court vide order dated 12.9.2003, which was challenged by preferring revision petition, which was dismissed by the court of Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar vide order dated 22.1.2004. It will be worthwhile to mention here that said SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.133/2004 Dr. RK Khanna Vs. State & Anr. 3 accused Smt. Madhu Verma was also charged for offence under Sections 402, 471 IPC by the same impugned order of the trial court, which was challenged by said Smt. Mathu Verma before this Court by preferring S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.1098/2003. The said petition was allowed and the charge against the said employee Smt. Mathu Verma was quashed by this Court vide order dated 13.1.2004. The State preferred SLP (Cr.) no.2092/2004 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex court vide order dated 17.2.2006. Therefore, the charge is only against one accused petitioner as another doctor who gave another certificate was discharged by the trial court and main accused Smt. Madhu Verma was also discharged by this Court and order of discharge has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the above decision in which charge for taking benefit of maternity leave on the basis of false certificate by the main accused against whom only the complainant could have grievance has been exonerated from charge then the petitioner cannot be proceeded against for charge referred SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.133/2004 Dr. RK Khanna Vs. State & Anr. 4 above. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner gave the certificate only to a lady employee Smt. Madhu Verma certifying maternity period and in the opinion of the doctor she was unable to attend the duties from 28.6.1993 to 26.9.1993. It is submitted that as per the petitioner, the lady was entitled to maternity leave for 90 days and if the lady could not have been granted leave beyond any particular period then she could have been refused the maternity leave by the employer. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the facts are not in dispute that boy born on 26.5.1993 whereas certificate was given for date 26.8.1993 by the petitioner and, therefore, there is no reason to quash the prosecution. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and the judgment of this Court delivered in S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.1098/2003 decided by this Court on 13.1.2004 by which the co-accused /main accused Smt. Mathu Verma was discharged by this Court after setting aside the order of Judicial Magistrate dated 12.9.1993. This court held that even if the fact goes SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.133/2004 Dr. RK Khanna Vs. State & Anr. 5 unrebutted, there are no chances of conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 420 and 471 IPC. In view of the above reasons and the facts mentioned above following the decision of this Court, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed on the basis of reasons given in the above said judgment of this Court, hence, this petition is allowed. The order of the revisional court dated 22.1.2004 and the order of the trial court dated 12.9.2003 are quashed and set aside and the petitioner is discharged from the charge under Sections 465, 468 IPC and the prosecution is quashed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.Goyal/-