The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a Bengaluru-based oncologist over allegations that he forged a signature on an experience certificate, holding that allowing the prosecution to continue would amount to an abuse of the legal process.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by oncologist Dr. Somashekar S. P., who had challenged a magistrate court’s decision to summon him on charges relating to forgery and the use of forged documents under the Indian Penal Code.
Background Of The Dispute
The case arose after Dr. Somashekar resigned from Manipal Hospital, where he had worked for nearly two decades, to join Aster DM Healthcare.
According to Manipal Hospital, it received an email from Dataflow Services between November 8 and November 21, 2022, seeking verification of an experience certificate purportedly issued to the doctor. The hospital maintained that it had never issued such a certificate and alleged that the signature appearing on the document had been forged.
Based on these allegations, the hospital filed a private complaint before a magistrate.
Police Report And Magistrate’s Order
During the investigation, the police submitted a B report, concluding that no offence was made out. However, Manipal Hospital challenged the report by filing a protest petition.
The magistrate subsequently took cognizance of the complaint, rejected the police’s conclusion, and issued summons to Dr. Somashekar for alleged offences involving forgery and the use of forged documents. The doctor then approached the High Court seeking to have the proceedings set aside.
High Court’s Findings
Allowing the petition, the High Court observed that it was disturbing that a hospital where the petitioner had served for over 20 years was accusing him of forging an experience certificate that, according to the court, he did not even seek.
The court held that the investigating agency’s B report should have been accepted and the proceedings closed. It further found that the magistrate had erred in taking cognizance of the complaint and issuing summons without properly considering the documents placed on record along with the police report.
The court ruled that permitting the prosecution to continue would constitute an abuse of the process of law and lead to a miscarriage of justice.
During the hearing, Justice Nagaprasanna also orally remarked that doctors should be allowed to treat patients rather than being drawn into disputes between hospitals. The judge cautioned against making doctors scapegoats in private disputes and observed that Manipal Hospital ought to have taken a more magnanimous view, considering the petitioner had served the institution for around 20 years.
Relief Limited To Quashing The Case
While setting aside the criminal proceedings, the High Court declined to permit Dr. Somashekar to initiate malicious prosecution proceedings against the complainant, stating that such relief was not warranted in the peculiar facts of the case.
