Rajendra Saxena. J.

1. The aforementioned petitions filed under Section 482, Cr. P. C. arises out of the judgment dated 30-8-88 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. I, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 76/1981 "State of Rajasthan v. Musariya"; whereby the said Sessions Judge ordered for initiating proceedings under Section 340, Cr. P. C. against the petitioners for prosecuting them for offences under Sections 193 and 195, I.P.C, and, as such, these petitions are being decided by a common order.

2. Stated in succinct, the relevant facts are that on the report of one Udai Singh, Crime No. 4/1981 was registered at Police Station, Weir. After investigation, the police submitted a challan against Musariya and others in the Court of concerned Magistrate from where the case was committed to the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bharatpur. The charges, for the offences under Sections 148 307 326 325 324 323 read with Section 149, I.P.C, were framed against the accused persons. Briefly, the prosecution case was that the accused persons inflicted injuries to informant Udai Singh and his father Suraj Mai, who were medically examined by Medical Jurist Dr. Bhopal Singh, petitioner. The petitioner found as many as seventeen injuries on the person of Suraj Mai, which were caused by sharp as well as blunt weapons detailed in M.L.R. Ex. P. 13. For injuries No. I to 5,7,8 and 9 to 14, Dr. Bhopal Singh advised for the radiological examination. Petitioner Dr. Jal Singh, who was posted as Radiologist at General Hospital, Bharatpur took the skiagram of Surajmal on 19-1-81 and fracture of lower part of radish the left hand, fracture of proximal phalynx of left thumb and fracture of fifth metacarpel bone in the right hand as also fracture of proximal phalynx of ring finger were detected. The skiagram of Suraj Mai was also taken on 19-1-81 vide X-Ray plate Ex. P. 5 which was found defective by Dr. Jal Singh, who advised to repeat the skiagram of the skull. On 21-1-81, the skiagram of skull of Suraj Mai was repeated and petitioner Dr. Jal Singh noticed the fracture of his parietal bone vide his X-ray report Ex. P. 4. The informant Udai Singh was also examined on 19-1-81 by Dr. Jal Singh and he noticed as many as ten injuries on his person. The skiagram of Udai Singh revealed a fracture of his fourth matacarpal bone. Since Surajmal had received multiple injuries, he was admitted as an indoor patient by C-W. I, Dr. N. K. Srivastava. who was on duty in the Emergency Ward vide Bed Head Ticket Ex. D. I. Dr. Srivastava referred Surajmal for being admitted in the Male Orthopaedic Ward because of X-Ray examination, bony injuries on his hands and legs were visible. During trial, the complainant of the accused party compromised the matter and the compromise-deed was also submitted before the Court. Since many of the offences for which the accused were charged, were not compoundable. the learned trial Judge recorded the prosecution evidence as also the plea of the accused persons and the defence evidence. Since the injured did not support the prosecution case in toto and resiled from their police statements, the learned trial Judge examined Dr. N. K. Srivastava and Dr. K. C. Sharma as Court witnesses, who stated that they did not notice any fracture on the head of Surajmal. The learned trial Judge acquitted all the accused persons but while parting with the impugned judgment, he made certain remarks prejudicial to the petitioners. Relying on the testimony of CW 1 and CW 2, he observed that had there been any fracture in the head of Surajmal, Dr. N. K- Srivastava and Dr. K. C. Sharma, who had attended and treated Surajmal in the Orthopaedic Ward, must have found injuries on the head of Surajmal and, therefore, he inferred that the petitioners had forged the subsequent X-ray plate of the skull of Surajmal. The learned trial Judge was of the opinion that it was expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry be conducted against the petitioners under Section 340, Cr. P. C. for prosecuting them for the offence punishable under Sections 193 and 195, I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved by the prejudicial remarks/observations, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court for invoking its inherent powers and prayed for expunging the said remarks and for setting aside the proposed enquiry.

3. I have heard Shri Biri Singh learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri K. A. Khan, learned Public Prosecutor at length and perused the record of the trial Court in extenso.

4. At the very outset, I am constrained to observe that the remarks made by the trial Judge are not based on record and the same are unwarranted and uncalled-for for the reasons mentioned hereinafter. I have peeped into the statements of CW 1 Dr. N. K. Srivastava and CW 2 Dr. K. C. Sharma. Dr. N. K. Srivastava who was on duty in the Emergency Ward at the relevant time, did not examine the injuries of Surajmal and Udai Singh. As a matter of fact, he had only referred the aforesaid injured for being admitted in the hospital, who had sustained bony injuries, which were apparently noticed by him. Dr. Sri vastava did not jot down any injury either of Surajmal or Udai Singh at the time of admission to the hospital on their Bed Head Tickets Ex. P. 11 and Ex. P. 12. He has specifically admitted that after seeing the visible fracture on their hands and legs, he was of the opinion that they should be given treatment in the Orthopaedic Male Ward. Dr. Srivastava has deposed that he did not pay any attention as to whether Surajmal had also sustained head injuries. In his cross-examination, he stated that it is not possible by a superficial examination as to whether a person has sustained a fracturc on his skull or not. He has stated that since the fracture on the upper and lower extremities of Surajmal and Udai Singh were visible and. as such, they were referred by him to the Orthopaedic Ward for their admissions. He has further stated that Dr. Bhopal Singh, Medical Jurist had examined the injuries of Surajmal and Udai Singh and that the said fact also finds mention in their Bed Head Tickets Ex. D. 11 and Ex. D. 12. Dr. Srivastava has specifically stated that he is not in a position to say that Surajmal had injuries on his head or not" Therefore, this witness does not categorically Mate that Surajmal had not sustained and injury on his head.

5. CW 2 Dr. K. C. Sharma, who was on duty in the Orthopaedic Ward has deposed that Surajmal was admitted in the Orthopaedic Ward on 19-1-81 for his treatment of bony injuries. He has admitted that in the Bed Head Ticket, he did not jot down all the injuries sustained by the patient. On the other hand, only the bony injuries were mentioned, which were visible. This witness was also not sure as to whether Surajmal had received any injury on his skull or on any other part of the body. He has also admitted that the injuries of Surajmal and Udai Singh were examined by Dr. Bhopal Singh, Medical Jurist. Therefore, from the testimony of aforementioned Court witnesses, by no stretch of imagination, it can be inferred that Surajmal had not sustained any body injury on his skull, when he was admitted in the hospital.

6. Petitioners Dr. Jal Singh and Dr. Bhopal Singh were also examined as PW I and PW 2 respectively by the trial Court. Petitioner Dr. Jal Singh specifically deposed that skiagram of the skull of Surajmal taken on 19-1-81 was found defective because of its cutting from one side and, therefore, he had advised for repeating the X-ray examination of the skull of Surajmal. The second skiagram of the skull of Surajmal was taken on 21-1-81 which revealed a fracture of his parietal bone. Petitioner Dr. Bhopal Singh proved the injury reports of Surajmal and Udai Singh and deposed that Surajmal had as many as six injuries (Injuries No. I to 6 were on his head for radiological examination of his skull was advised). There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that the Medico Legal Injury Reports of Surajmal and Udai Singh were prepared afterwards and not on 19-1-81.

7. The learned trial Judge has conveniently ignored the material fact that the parties had entered into a compromise and even submitted the compromise deed in the Court that is why, Udai Singh and Surajmal resiled from their police statements and deviated, from the initial story set out in the F.I.R. Relying on their statements, the trial Magistrate found that the prosecution evidence was inconsistent, contradictory and unworthy of credence and acquitted all the eight accused persons but dissecting the statements of CW 1 and CW 2 and relying over a part of their testimony and ignoring the other part of their statements on the basis of the surmises and conjectures, observed that Surajmal had not received any injury on his skull and that for which a forged skiagram was prepared detecting a fracture on the right parietal bone of Surajmal. Apparently, the observations made by the learned trial Judge on this count are wholly erroneous, based on misreading of evidence and ignoring the material evidence on record. There is not a iota of evidence to establish that the X-ray plates dt. 21-1-81 did not belong to Surajmal. In my considered opinion, the remarks/ observations made by the trial Judge against the petitioners are perverse and against the record and the trial Judge has exceeded in exercising his jurisdiction and in directing for holding an enquiry under Section 340. Cr. P. C. for their prosecution for the offences under Sections 193 and 195. I.P.C. As a matter of fact, the remarks/observations made by the trial Judge against the petitioners are unwarranted and unsupported by any evidence recorded in this case and the impugned order directing an enquiry against the petitioners is tantamount to abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned findings/observations/remarks passed by the trial Judge deserve to be quashed and set aside by invoking the inherent powers of this Court.

8. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed and the prejudicial remarks/observations passed by the learned trial Judge in his judgment dated 30-8-1988 as also the direction for initiating an enquiry under Section 340, Cr. P. C. against the petitioners are hereby quashed.