Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Gauhati Single Bench of Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia has quashed criminal proceedings against a cardiologist, issuing a definitive directive that the continuation of proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of the court. The Court found no prima facie case under the charged sections of the Indian Penal Code and ordered the case to be dismissed in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It stated that the allegations failed to disclose any intention to cause harm or commit fraud, and thus did not constitute forgery or cheating under law.

The matter arose from allegations concerning medical reports related to the treatment of late Jatin Hazarika. The petitioner, a practicing cardiologist, had performed an ECHO-Cardiogram at Nemcare Hospital in Guwahati. Following the patient’s demise at another hospital outside Assam, his daughter, the complainant in this case, lost the original ECHO reports and subsequently approached the doctor for duplicates.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Adani Power’s Compensation Claim | Obligation To Supply Power Arose Only After Amended PPAs Received Regulatory Approval

The petitioner provided duplicate copies. It was later noticed by the complainant that these copies contained minor manual corrections. Specifically, figures like "42%" were changed to "43%" and "55%" altered to "55.1%". These alterations were handwritten.

Finding these corrections suspicious, the complainant lodged an FIR alleging forgery. The police investigated the matter and submitted a Final Report stating no materials could be found to support the allegations. Dissatisfied, the complainant approached the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, requesting further investigation by Bhangagarh Police Station. A second investigation ensued, leading to a second Final Report. Despite this, a complaint case was filed, registered as C.R. No. 4822 of 2022.

The trial court took cognizance of offences under Sections 417, 465, and 468 of the IPC. The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings.

Mr. A.M. Bora, senior counsel for the petitioner, argued that under Section 463 IPC, forgery involves creating a false document with an intent to cause harm or deceive. He asserted that the treatment was already administered based on the original reports, and the corrected duplicates could not have caused harm to any person or supported any fraudulent claim.

He relied on Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751, where the Supreme Court elaborated the concept of "false document" under Section 464 IPC. It noted that a document must be executed by impersonating or without authority, materially altered, or obtained through deception. Mr. Bora stated that none of these criteria were met.

In response, Mr. A. Phukan, representing the complainant, contended that the High Court should refrain from conducting a "mini-trial" under Section 482 CrPC. He referred to CBI v. Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379, to argue that courts at this stage should not assess whether charges are proved.

The Court examined the relevant provisions of the IPC and the precedents cited.

It recorded "Now, a brief visit to these sections may be fruitful... Section 417 - Whoever cheats shall be punished... Section 465 - Whoever commits forgery... Section 468 - Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating."

On the definition of cheating under Section 415 IPC, the Court quoted:

"Whoever by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property... or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything... which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm... is said to cheat."

As regards forgery, the Court stated: "Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record... with intention to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person... commits forgery."

It then clarified the essential components: "The basic elements of forgery are- (1) the making of a false document... and (2) such making should be with such intention as is specified in the Section."

Justice Saikia observed: "Above all those things, the most important aspect of a criminal case is the existence of mens rea i.e. criminal intention."

He continued: "The petitioner being a doctor, treated late Jatin Hazarika on the basis of original ECHO-Cardiogram reports... The petitioner gave those duplicate reports... manually made some corrections... Does this act amounts to cheating or forgery?"

The Court answered: "The answer to the said question must be given in negative. After the demise of Jatin Hazarika, these reports had lost all their values. These are of no value, except for insurance claims or similar matters."

The Court referred to Sushil Suri v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2011) 5 SCC 708 and the well-established precedent in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, quoting paragraph 102 outlining categories where Section 482 CrPC can be invoked.

It particularly stated: "(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value... do not prima facie constitute any offence... (5) Where the allegations... are so absurd and inherently improbable... (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide..."

The High Court held: "In my considered opinion, the complaint lodged by the Respondent No.2 failed to establish a prima facie criminal case against the present petitioner."

It recorded: "This Court is of the opinion that the ratio laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra) is squarely applicable in the present case."

Also Read: Madras High Court Decries Flimsy Boycotts By Lawyers | Directs Bar Council To Act On Specific Misconduct Complaints

Further, the Court concluded: "Allowing the criminal proceedings of C.R. No.4822/2022 to continue before the trial court will be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court..."

Justice Saikia exercised the Court's inherent power: "Accordingly, the criminal proceedings of C.R. No.4822/2022 is quashed and set aside."

The Court also directed: "Criminal Petition along with the connected Interlocutory Application (Crl.) is disposed of."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. A.M. Bora, Senior Advocate; Mr. R.J. Das, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. B. Sarma, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam; Mr. A. Phukan, Advocate

Case Title: Dr. Farhin Iqbal vs. The State of Assam and Anr

Neutral Citation: 2025: GAU-AS:8065

Case Number: Crl. Pet./1264/2022

Bench: Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia

[Read/Download order]