IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36703 of 2007 1. RAJEEV JUNEJA, SON OF LATE JAGDISH CHANDRA JUNEJA, DIRECTOR, MANKIND PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED. 2. ARVIND KUMAR, SON OF LATE NARSINGH SINGH, MEDICAL REPRESENTATIVE, MANKIND PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED, PRESENTLY POSTED AT BUXAR. 3. SUMIT KUMAR, SON OF SRI GYANENDRA PRASAD, MEDICAL REPRESENTATIVE, MANKIND PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED, PRESENTLY POSTED AT BUXAR. 4. P.S. RAJORA, SON OF SRI R.S. RAJORA, PRODUCT EXECUTIVE, PRESENTLY POSTED AT NEW DELHI, MANKIND PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED. 5. KULWANT SINGH, SON OF SARDAR PRITAM SINGH, PRODUCT EXECUTIVE, PRESENTLY POSTED AT NEW DELHI, MANKIND PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED. ALL ARE EMPLOYED WITH M/S MANKIND PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED, 236-OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE-3, NEW DELHI-20. …………………………………………………………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. DR. BINOD KUMAR MISHRA, M.S.(ORTHO), SON OF SRI BARMESHWAR MISHRA, RESIDENT OF CIVIL LINES, BUXAR, P.S. BUXAR, DISTRICT/TOWN-BUXAR. …………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 3. 25.11.2008. Heard Mr. Prakash Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Anjana Prakash, Senior Advocate, the learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and Dr. Mayanand Jha, the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioners have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 2.6.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar, in Complaint Case No.594(C) of 2004 whereby he has taken cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 420 and 471 I.P.C. - 2 - One Dr. Binod Kumar Mishra, the complainant, impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, alleged inter alia that although he was the only doctor in Buxar holding the qualification of M.S.(Ortho), the accused persons having full knowledge of the same, with ulterior intention of damaging his reputation got published and distributed pamphlets throughout the town of Buxar and its suburbs from 4.9.2004 calling the general public to come on 6.9.2004 to the Neha Nursing Home, Station Road, Buxar, for examination of osteoporosis free of cost through a well known Orthopaedician, Dr. Mahendra Prasad only at a nominal registration fee of Rs.50/-. It was also alleged that on such circulation, a large number of persons thronged at the Neha Nursing Home since morning of 6.9.2004 from whom the accused collected money in lacs as registration fee of Rs.50/- each and without any examination of osteoporosis sent them back with advice of the same Dr. Mahendra Prasad for some medicines. The further allegation was that the accused got projected the aforesaid Dr. Mahendra Prasad as a reknowned orthopaedician in the Hindi daily “ Dainik Jagaran” dated 7.9.2004 as a result of which the complainant suffered immensely at the hands of the accused by way of conspiracy and cheating. It is said that the complainant asked for clarification through pleader’s notice but the same did not evince any interest. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are employees of the Pharmaceutical Company who apart from carrying on business in Pharmaceutical items does social service by organizing Camps amongst general people of the locality free of charge for - 3 - detecting the level of Osteoporosis through computerized machine under supervision of a competent doctor of the locality for which the normal charges are about Rs.1000/- and in that connection petitioner nos.2 to 5 organized the Camp at Buxar on 6.9.2004 under the supervision of Dr. Mahendra Prasad at Neha Nursing Home. While admitting the distribution of pamphlets/handbills , it was sought to be submitted in defence that inadvertently Dr. Mahendra Prasad in the pamphlets and handbills was described as M.S.(Ortho.) instead of M.S.(General Surgery) and when the mistake was detected the word(“Ortho.”) was struck off from each handbill notwithstanding the fact that a M.S.(General Surgery) is competent to take up cases of bone diseases, and this fact finds approval in the statement of CWs. Dr. Jawaharlal and Dr. Ahsan Ahmad. It was also submitted that the complainant fabricated false evidence by erasing the cut off word “(Ortho)” in the handbills and filed the same to show that the petitioners have intentionally projected Dr.Mahendra Prasad as M.S. (Ortho). The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners unfortunately is their defence supported by alibi and also banks on facts, the pros and cons whereof, can only be appreciated by leading of evidence. As the law remains settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court and this Court, the High Court should be loath in interfering with matters which involve looking into facts or the defence of the accused while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - 4 - In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and dismiss the application. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)