SHILLONG: The High Court of Meghalaya has quashed the FIR filed by the lady proprietor of Sanjo Medical, a private pharmacy located outside the NEIGRIHMS, alleging acts of molestation and corruption by D M Thappa, the Director of NEIGRIHMS.
When the pending matter came up for hearing on Monday, K Paul, the counsel for the petitioner ( Thappa), said the FIR was filed on May 1 last year after the director on April 30 confiscated medical equipment from Sanjo medical brought to the Cathlab in the Department of Cardiology by two persons who entered the institute along with the proprietor.
The equipment were for the use of patients, who were to undergo cardiac intervention on April 30.
The FIR alleged that Thappa had on February 4 last year tried to outrage her modesty and also demanded a commission on medical supplies.
However, the stand of Thappa was that on February 4, he was not even in Shillong as he was attending a meeting of the Union Ministry of Health, in New Delhi.
Later, the woman corrected the date of incident as February 1 last year and even raised the matter before the Meghalaya State Commission for Women.
According to the lady, the mistake was due to a typographical error.
The single bench headed by Justice HS Thangkhiew, after hearing both the parties, quashed the criminal proceedings arising from the FIR on May 1 last year on the basis of which a case was registered in Rynjah police station.
The bench observed that a criminal proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
The bench said the chain of events in the instant case and the totality of circumstances that brought about the filing of the FIR on May 1 and the events thereafter have made this case peculiar to itself, and as such no strait jacket formula can be employed or adopted, to determine its outcome.
The court said that beyond the delay in lodging the FIR as observed earlier, though not fatal to the case and not to be considered a factor to influence any decision, the timing of the same cannot be ignored since it was filed the very next day after the incident of April 30. Secondly, the correction of the date is another factor that also has importance, inasmuch as, the respondent’s complaint would have been rendered useless, if the original date stood as February 4 last year. “The correction therefore, has to be viewed with a certain amount of doubt as to its objective, which brings into play the aspect of malice. Looking at the matter in its entire perspective and not piecemeal, or only at the complaint, it is seen that the instant case is a fit case, wherein the discretionary power under section 482 CrPC is to be exercised in the interest of justice”, the court said.
