Why Karnataka high court quashed the criminal case filed against doctor after he joined a rival hospital

NEW DELHI: The Karnataka high court has quashed a criminal case against a doctor filed by his former employer, Manipal Hospital, finding that the case looked like revenge for the doctor leaving to join a rival hospital.What was the dispute aboutAccording to the complaint, Dr Somashekar S.P. worked at Manipal Hospital for nearly 19 years, as Head of the Oncology Department, Cancer Speciality Director, and Chairman of the Surgical Department. In 2022, he resigned and joined Aster DM Healthcare as Director of Oncology Services.A few months later, Aster's background verification agency, Dataflow Services, wrote to Manipal Hospital to verify an experience certificate submitted by Dr Somashekar.Head of medical service at Manipal Hospital replied saying that the hospital had never issued such a certificate and that his own signature on it was forged. He then filed a police complaint alleging forgery and use of a forged document under Sections 465 and 471 of the IPC.Police investigated and filed a closure report, meaning they found no evidence to prosecute.But Manipal Hospital wasn't satisfied and objected to the closure.

Based on this, the magistrate reopened the case and summoned Dr Somashekar to face trial. This was based on a report from a private lab, which said the signature on the certificate did not belong to the complainant. Aggrieved by this, Dr Somashekar approached the high court asking it to cancel the case against him.What did the high court sayJustice M. Nagaprasanna observed that nobody was even claiming the certificate itself was fake — the only complaint was about the signature on it.

The court said it was odd to accuse someone of forging a signature on a certificate proving experience that everyone already knew was genuine.The court also found it hard to believe a doctor with an undisputed, decades-long reputation would need to forge anything."Nothing could be more startling, if not deeply disquieting than the spectacle of an institution accusing a doctor – who devotedly served it, for nearly 20 years, of forging proof of experience, that the institution itself had witnessed, benefitted from, can scarcely be denied by the institution," it said.On the timing of the complaint, the court held that everything about when and how the allegation was made pointed to an attempt to pressure the doctor for leaving one hospital to join another, and said criminal prosecution cannot be allowed to become a tool for that kind of pressure.The bench was also critical of the magistrate relying solely on a private forensic report, noting that forensic examination must be done by a government-authorised lab."The allegation that the petitioner forged the signature on the experience certificate, which he neither requires nor stood to materially benefit from is so inherently improbable that compelling him to undergo the rigmarole or an ordeal of trial would itself amount to punishment," the court said.The court further added that criminal law isn't meant to be used as an easy way to vent institutional anger, personal grudges, or hurt pride by dressing them up as criminal charges.The high court allowed the petition and quashed the entire proceedings pending before the trial court.