Dr.Ashwani Pathak vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during the investigation disclose a case that is not confined to mere regulatory irregularity but involves alleged manipulation of records, use of forged documents, and fraudulent claims under the Ayushman Scheme. The Court found that the issues of whether disputed records were fabricated, digital signatures misused, beneficiaries genuinely treated, and wrongful financial benefits obtained are matters requiring examination of evidence at trial. The Court noted that while the petitioners' submissions regarding inspection competence, hotel usage, professional arrangements, and claim settlements might constitute relevant material for their defence, their evidentiary effect could not be conclusively determined at the stage of quashing. The Court reiterated that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is to be exercised sparingly and that it is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or a mini-trial. The Court concluded that the allegations and collected material raise factual and evidentiary issues that cannot be conclusively adjudicated in the present proceedings. The contention of no specific overt act attributed to the petitioners was also not deemed sufficient to justify quashing at this stage, as individual roles and intent are matters for trial. Therefore, the Court found no sufficient ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR or consequential proceedings.

Facts

The petitioners, Dr. Ashwani Pathak and others, sought to quash a criminal case (Crime No. 507/2022) and subsequent proceedings (S.T. No. 661/2022) pending before the 30th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. The case was registered following an inspection of Vega Hotel, which was allegedly being used as an HDU/medical facility. Allegations included discrepancies in Ayushman beneficiary records, fabrication of patient and pathology reports, disputed digital signatures, use of forged documents, and wrongful financial benefits under the Ayushman Scheme. The FIR was registered based on a report from the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jabalpur. During the investigation, statements were recorded, and various records and electronic data were seized.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose the commission of the offences alleged under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 8 and 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Upcharagriha Tatha Rujopchar Sambandhi Sthapanaye (Registration and Licensing) Act, 1973, against the petitioners, warranting quashing of the proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that no specific overt act was attributed to them, and criminal liability was being fastened merely due to their association with the hospital. They argued that the inspection was not conducted by a competent authority as per the MoU and SOP, citing a prosecution witness's deposition. They also submitted that the use of Hotel Vega as an HDU did not disclose an offence, that the Ayushman Scheme has its own verification mechanisms, and that subsequent claim settlements weakened the fraud allegations. They further presented documents showing professional arrangements with doctors and stated that Hotel Vega was part of the hospital's expansion. Revenue/State's arguments: The State opposed the petition, arguing that sufficient material was collected during the investigation, including beneficiary disputes, record manipulation, disputed pathology reports, digital signatures, electronic data, and financial records, which require adjudication at trial. They contended that the petitioners could not seek appreciation of evidence or a mini-trial in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS.