HC of J&K quashes criminal proceedings against ex-medical superintendent

Srinagar: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh on Friday quashed the criminal proceedings under corruption charges against the ex-medical superintendent of SMHS hospital after finding out that the official has already been exonerated of these charges by the enquiry committee which the government has accepted.

The case arises out of an FIR 28/2010 registered with Police Station Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, alleging that there has been embezzlement of Rs.1,02, 55,020 during the period from April 2007 to December, 2009 wherein Rs.54,10,285 was remitted reducing the embezzled amount to Rs.48, 44,735.

It was alleged that the petitioner, Dr Waseem Qureshi who was serving as medical superintendent of SMHS hospital at that time had utilized an amount of Rs.16.45 lacs against the norms without previous approval from the competent authority and so far as the other portion of the embezzled amount is concerned, he, being the administrative head of the hospital, was supposed to have control and supervision over the accounts wing and, therefore, he is responsible for embezzlement of the amount.

Justice Sanjay Dhar while dealing with the case in hand said it is a case where it has been found that the petitioner has incurred expenditure of Rs.16.45 lacs out of the Hospital Development Fund in the interests of patient care and in extraordinary circumstances which had arisen on account of Amar Nath land row and his action in this regard has been ratified by the Hospital Development Committee.

With respect to other portion of the amount prosecution stated it was embezzled allegedly by cashier Mohammad Amin Nazki and other officers/officials of SMHS hospital.

Court said in the present case, the prosecution records reveal that the petitioner may have violated departmental norms while incurring expenditure out of the Hospital Development Fund but, nonetheless, the only intention of the petitioner in doing so was to take care of extreme urgency that had arisen on account of peculiar circumstances which had prevailed pursuant to Amarnath Land row and the said action of the petitioner was even ratified by the Hospital Development Committee. 

Similarly, court said that the petitioner may have also been found lacking in exercising a proper control over the accounts wing of the hospital but because he was not the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of those two particular accounts, therefore, it cannot be inferred that he was a part of the conspiracy in so far as embezzlement of funds out of those two account heads is concerned. 

“Mere lack of supervision on the part of the petitioner cannot form a basis for roping him in the conspiracy, particularly when he is not a signatory to the account books pertaining to those two account heads,” court said.

Justice Dhar said in the face of aforesaid facts and circumstances that the both the Enquiry Committees have exonerated the petitioner of the charges levelled against him and the Government has only issued a warning against him on account of his lack of supervision over the accounts wing and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari’s case (supra) would apply on all fours to the present case. 

“Therefore, the petitioner, on the basis of the material collected by the Investigating agency during the investigation of the case and on account of the fact that he has been fully exonerated by the two enquiry committees in the regular departmental proceedings, cannot be made to suffer the criminal prosecution emanating out of the impugned FIR,” court said.

Justice Dhar said in these circumstances, this Court finds the present case as the fit one for exercising its powers under Section 482 of Cr. P. C for quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner so as to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law.

“Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom to the extent of petitioner only, are quashed.The Case Diary be returned to counsel for respondents,” court directed and said.