Crl. Misc. No.M-24784 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-24784 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 25, 2010 Krishan Oberoi …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.K.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is an Advocate. He had lodged an FIR No. 538 dated July 27, 2009 at Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda against Jagmeet Singh and Gurjeet Singh on the allegation that they had trespassed in the house of the petitioner and had caused injuries on the person of complainant. Gurjeet Singh accused in the said case had made a statement in the cross-case under Sections 325, 323 IPC alleging that he had been caused injuries by the petitioner on the basis of the report annexure P-4 made by the Radiologist reporting that there was a fracture of nasal bone. Crl. Misc. No.M-24784 of 2010 [2] The petitioner had requested for re-examination of injured Gurjeet Singh by filing an application in the Court of CJM. On the basis of the orders of the Court, the Board given a report on February 20, 2010 that no opinion can be given on the basis of old MLR as the injured had no injury corresponding to the injuries No.1 and 2 of the MLR and there was no fracture of the nose and the same could not be said to be grievous. On the basis of variation of the report of the Radiologist dated November 27, 2009 and the report of the Medial Board dated February 20, 2010 (after 4 months) a direction cannot be given by this Court to the SSP to register a case against the Radiologist for giving a false favourable X-ray report to Gurpreet Singh as the report seems to have been given by the Radiologist in the exercise of his authority in the ordinary course of his employment. It has been informed that a cross case has been registered on the basis of the statement of Gurjeet Singh and the proceedings in the cross-case have been dropped against the petitioner finding the same to be false. In view of the above, no ground is made out for issuing any direction. Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail any other remedy available to him in accordance with law. Anything observed in this order will not prejudice the rights of the petitioner in case he availed alternative remedy. August 25, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE