'Effort To Harass': MP High Court Upholds Refusal Of Sanction To Prosecute Health Officials Who Searched Ayurvedic Doctor's Clinic
Image by: Shubha Patidar
The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed an appeal of a BAMS doctor challenging the State Government's refusal to grant sanction to prosecute the inspection team that searched his clinic in Ujjain, observing that the complaint was nothing but an effort to harass the inspection team who were discharging their duties.
The Division bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi directed;
"In view of the clear findings recorded by the sanctioning authority the complaint of the appellant is nothing but an effort to harass the public officers who were simply discharging their duties...In view of the above, it is a fit case where the aforesaid protection is warranted to the public officials who were discharging their official duties. Thus this Court does not find any merits in the contentions of the appellant. Therefore, interference in the order passed by the Single Bench is declined”.
A doctor and his wife, registered as BAMS (Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery) doctors with the state board, had been running a hospital in Ujjain for nearly 20 years. On May 18, 2011, they alleged that three men (respondents 4 to 6) entered their clinic and conducted an unauthorized search.
During the inspection, the team found that the patients were being admitted to the hospital and administered IV drips and injections. However, the couple failed to provide a certification from the Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Ujjain (CMHO). The team also found large quantities of allopathic medicines, injections, and bottles.
Following the inspection, the premises were sealed, and a report was sent to the Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, who directed the registration of FIR. Subsequently, the CMHO granted the couple permission to continue on the condition that they refrain from treating the patients with allopathic medicines and only administer Ayurvedic paddhathi to them. They were further instructed to register with CMHO and the wife was specifically directed not to use the designation 'Gynaecologist' in her professional title.
On January 4, 2014, a complaint was filed by Akhil Bhartiya Sangh Samiti Shakha MP to the Medical Officer of the Government Hospital, which was forwarded to the SDO-Revenue. Around the same time, three years after the 2011 inspection, the doctor filed a criminal complaint against the team.
The complaint was filed under Punishment for wrongful restraint (Section 341), Assault or criminal force with intent to dishonour (Section 355), House-tresspass to commit offence (Section 451), Punishment for defamation (Section 500) read with Common Intention (Section 34) of the Indian Penal Code.
Initially, the Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 448 and 500 IPC, but refused to proceed under the other provisions. Meanwhile, the inspection team approached the High Court, but the case was dismissed as withdrawn. Later, they approached the Sessions Court, which partly allowed the revision, holding that a sanction under Section 197 of CrPC was mandatory and that the Trial Court could not proceed without such a sanction.
Section 197(1) CrPC states “When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction”.
The doctor, subsequently, approached the State Government for a grant of sanction, but the request was denied. The doctor's challenge to this order was dismissed by a Single Bench, prompting an appeal before the Division Bench.
Senior Counsel for the doctor contended that the inspection team entered their clinic without lawful authority, as no official duty to inspect the clinic was assigned to them.
The division bench noted, however, that the doctor did not deny the findings of the inspection team that allopathic medicines were administered to their patients despite being BAMS doctors.
The court referred to the findings of the competent authority, the Secretary/Health and Family Welfare Department, which confirmed that the Directorate of Health Services issued directions to Collectors and Superintendents of Police of all the Districts for taking action against quacks, pursuant to which SDM (Revenue), Nagda, constituted the committee.
“There is no personal enmity with the present appellant of the team inspected his clinic”, the court further observed. It also held that an RTI reply stating that no such team was constituted could not be relied upon to quash the order refusing sanction, as the reply was issued without proper verification.
Thus, the bench concluded that the doctor's complaint was “nothing but an effort to harass the public officers who were simply discharging their duties”.
Emphasizing the protective purpose of Section 197 CrPC, the court observed;
“As such it is abundantly clear that the respondents No.4 to 6 were acting in discharge of their official duties and there is no allegation of personal enmity, fabrication of records. The appellant not even denied the contents of the report submitted by the committee. Not even the single assertion to the fact that they were not administering allopathic medicine is there in the petition. It is thus found that the act of respondents No.4 and 6 was directly connected with their official duty as assigned by the SDM”.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: Dr Himanshu Dutt Pandey v State of Madhya Pradesh (2025:MPHC-IND:23399)
For Appellant: Senior Advocate Ashok Kumar Sethi with Advocate Harshwardhan Sharma
For State: Additional Advocate General Anand Soni