IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-28676 of 2008 Date of Decision: November 04, 2008 Dr. A.P. Sodhi .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Sunil Saharan, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.13 dated 1.3.2006 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station, SVB (H), District Gurgaon. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the FIR has been lodged after 8 years of the incident. The other argument addressed by the learned counsel is that as against the petitioner, no offence can be alleged to have been committed, in so much as, the certificate issued by the petitioner was not for the purposes of taking employment, rather it was only for purposes of claiming scholarship. The rules, violation of which has been claimed, are not applicable. The certificate Crl. Misc. No. M-28676 of 2008 [2] issued i.e. Annexure P-4, is based on a certificate issued by Bhargava Hearing Aid Centre, Sector 16, Panchkula after conducting audiometery test, and therefore, no fault can be found therein. The address of Om Parkash, co-accused as given in the certificate is on the basis of material supplied to the petitioner and therefore, there is no element of deceit therein. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner. The allegation as against the petitioner is that the petitioner had issued a certificate to Om Parkash thereby certifying that he (Om Parkash) had 80% hearing impaired disability. While Om Parkash was a resident of Rewari, the certificate was issued by the petitioner while he was posted as SMO, C.H.C., Kalka. It is a requirement of rules that such certificate can only be issued by a doctor posted in the same region. The other allegation in the FIR is that the petitioner examined Om Parkash and issued certificate, as observed above, whereas, it was required to be issued by a Board of Doctors. Om Parkash was in collusion with the petitioner and got 80% handicap certificate after he had been denied a certificate to that effect by the Civil Hospital, Rewari. I have also considered the contents of certificate, Annexure P-4. Recital in the certificate Crl. Misc. No. M-28676 of 2008 [3] indicates that it has been certified by the petitioner that Om Parkash had been examined by him on 13.4.1998. The certificate further provides that co-accused, Om Parkash had residual hearing from the right ear to the tune of 20% and left ear to the tune of 20%, and therefore, 80% loss. In Para 8 of the petition, it has however been admitted by the petitioner that the certificate had been issued on the basis of another certificate, Annexure P-3, issued by a private facility. As against this, as noticed above, the certificate narrates that the certificate had been issued by the petitioner after Om Parkash had been examined by the petitioner himself. Considering the documents available on record, it cannot per-se be recorded that the petitioner is innocent. Affidavit cannot be taken as evidence in substitute to a thorough investigation of the matter. Statutory powers of the investigating agency cannot be throttled, in the facts and circumstances of the case. So far as the delay is concerned, limitation as provided under Section 468 Cr.P.C., is not attracted to the offences involved in the present case. Whether the petitioner was in collusion with Om Parkash or not, is a matter that can be determined only after investigation and during trial. Prima facie, I find that certificate has been given by the petitioner to enable a person not falling in handicap Crl. Misc. No. M-28676 of 2008 [4] category to get a job reserved for a person who is handicap. Thus, a deserving handicap person has been deprived of his right by the offending act done by the petitioner. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Anything said hereinabove is only in the context of the petition filed and would not be construed as opinion on the merits of the case. (AJAI LAMBA) November 04, 2008 JUDGE avin