Dr Arun Kumar Singh Jai Diagnostic Centre vs State Of U.P. And Anr.


A482(A)_46756_2013

Court No. – 50
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 46756 of 2013
Applicant :- Dr. Arun Kumar Singh Jai Diagnostic Centre
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sriprakash Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon’ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning
order dated 06.08.2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Mirzapur, in Complaint Case No. 4311 of 2013, u/s 28 of the P.C. and
P.N.D.T. Act, P.S. Adalhat, District Mirzapur, pending in the court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused
the record
The submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant involve
several intricate factual details and many disputed questions of fact related to
the case. False implication due to malafide intention has been pleaded.
By invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court the applicants cannot
persuade the court to have a pre trial before the actual trial begins. The
submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant call for
adjudication on pure questions of fact and while doing so even the
submissions made on points of law can also be appropriately gone into by the
trial court in this case.
The quashing of the complaint can also be done only if it does not disclose
any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its
basis. The Apex Court decisions in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR
1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426
make the position of law in this regard clear.
In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Apex Court which
might justify the quashing of complaint or the impugned proceedings, the
prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the courts
process either. The summoning court has been vested with sufficient powers
to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if
for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless.
As requested, the applicant is permitted to appear before the concerned court
within a month from today through his counsel and move an application
claiming discharge. The concerned court shall after hearing the counsel decide
the application on merits in accordance with law within a period which shall
not exceed a period of three months from today.
No coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicant for a period of
three months from today or till disposal of the discharge application,
whichever is earlier.
If the concerned court after hearing the counsel for the accused feels
persuaded to have the view that the accused ought not to have been
summoned and the charge is groundless it shall not abstain from discharging
the accused only on the ground that the material available at the time of
summoning was the same which is available on record at the time of hearing
the discharge application u/s 245(2) Cr.P.C. On the other hand if the lower
court even after hearing the counsel for accused holds the view that the
accused has been rightly summoned and the material produced by the
complainant does not indicate the charges to be groundless it shall make an
order to that effect and proceed further in the matter in accordance with law
and shall also be free to adopt such measures to procure the attendance of the
accused as the law permits.
It is clarified that if applicant does not avail of this order within the stipulated
period of time no application for extension of time shall be entertained.
With the above observations, this application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.12.2013
PKC

Dr. H.S.Kalra vs State Of U.P. And Another


A482(A)_1421_2014

Court No. – 50
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 1421 of 2014
Applicant :- Dr. H.S.Kalra
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Sharma,Ramesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that clinic of the applicant has been
registered and licence has not been cancelled, only it was suspended. From perusal
of the complaint itself it is clear that there was no violation of any provision
including the provisions under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic
Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act 1994. Since there was complaint
from side of the applicant, hence, in counter-blast the present complaint has been
lodged in which the applicant has been summoned. Hence the impugned
summoning order dated 26.10.2013 and entire proceeding is liable to be quashed.
Learned AGA opposed the aforesaid prayer and submitted that even certificate was
found forged and as per complaint there was violation of provisions of aforesaid
Act 1994.
Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Whether contention
of the applicant is correct, and whether averment of the complaint is correct, it is
required be considered by the court concerned at appropriate stage, in accordance
with law on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. Hence, no interference is
required at this initial stage.
However, if objection/discharge application is moved by the applicant through
counsel within 30 days before the court concerned, it is expected that the same shall
be considered, expeditiously, at appropriate stage, in accordance with law. Till
disposal of the application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant
in Complaint Case No. 4025 of 2013 State Vs. Dr. H.S.Kalra, under the Preconception
and
Pre-natal
Diagnostic
Techniques
(Prohibition
of
Sex
Selection)
Act

1994
pending
in
the
court
of
C.J.M.
Bijnor.

With aforesaid observations and direction, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is
finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 16.1.2014
A.K.Srivastava

Dr Vijay Narain Pathak vs State Of U.P.& Another


CRLP(A)_24591_2013

Court No. – 55
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. – 24591 of 2013
Petitioner :- Dr. Vijay Narain Pathak
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandan Sharma,R.P.Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon’ble Surendra Singh,J.
Hon’ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought relief in the
nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11.4.2013 passed by
the respondent no.1 whereby sanction was accorded to prosecute the
petitioner and the ancillary prayer was also made in the nature of mandamus
restraining the respondents from taking any coercive measures against the
petitioner pursuant to the impugned order dated 11.4.2013.
The fact of the case in a nutshell is that the petitioner was working as Chief
Medical Officer in Allahabad during the year 2005 to 2008 and is now posted
as Senior Consultant at District Hospital Fatehpur. A first information report
was lodged by Prakash Rai vide Case Crime No. 128 of 2011 under sections
120B/218/420/467/468/471 IPC read with section 13 (1) (d) and (2) of
Prevention of Corruption Ac t 1988 at the police station Cantt. Allahabad on
16.7.2011 . The first information report was lodged for issuance of a
certificate of registration to Praveen Chandra under Rule 6 of Preconception
& Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection ) Rules 1996
which shall here-in-after in brevity be referred to as Rules 1966 for running
Ultra Sound Clinic in the name of Sai Kripa Chandra Diagnostic Centre
19G/11 Kamala Nehru Road, Civil Lines, Allahabad on the basis of forged
certificates submitted by him.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the name of the
petitioner has not surfaced in the first information report . The petitioner was
not instrumental in getting Ultra Sound Diagnostic Centre registered in favour
of Naveen Chandra Srivastava under Rules 1996. The documents if any
submitted by Naveen Chandra Srivastava for the establishment of the Clinic
was required to be submitted on an affidavit hence the person who has
submitted the affidavit is solely responsible for any fraud & forgery .
Moreover, no enquiry or verification of the document was ever done in
respect of the registration . The petitioner has discharged his duties in a
bonafide manner . There is no allegation on the basis of which the petitioner
can be held liable under the Prevention of Corruption Act or under the Penal
Code. The petitioner has neither committed any cheating nor fabricated any
forged documents hence the order according sanction for prosecution of the
petitioner under section 197 Cr.P.C. is untenable in the eyes of law. The
petitioner has challenged the first information report before this Hon’ble Court
by means of Criminal Misc. Writ petition No. 20878 of 2013 (Dr. Vijay
Narain Pathak Vs. State and others) and the aforesaid writ petition was
dismissed on the ground of issuance of sanction order dated 11.4.2013 by the
Government .
Per contra learned AGA contradicted the averments made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner contending that the order was passed by the
competent statutory authority on 11.4.2013 which was within the knowledge
of the petitioner . When the writ petition was pending before this Hon’ble
Court, the petitioner has filed sanction order in the aforesaid petition and the
writ petition was dismissed holding that the sanction has been obtained after
collecting material evidence therefore, the sanction to prosecute the petitioner
has attained finality .
We have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced by
the learned counsel for the parties.
From the bald perusal of the impugned order, it emerges that the impugned
order has been passed on the basis of relevant materials viz. statement of
witnesses who had produced the reports before the competent authority hence
the impugned order cannot be thwarted at the primitive stage without
adjudging its gravity and seriousness. It has not been brought to the notice of
the court that after sanction whether the competent court has entertained the
matter and issued summons while challenging the sanction order in the instant
petition, it is specifically averred that the petitioner was not having knowledge
of passing of the impugned order due to which there is slight delay in filing
the writ petition whereas the petitioner has filed the affidavit in writ petition
no. 20878 of 2013 along with sanctioned order passed by the Government
dated 11.4.2013 and was conceded that the sanction to prosecute the petitioner
has been accorded.hence it is apparent that all the material facts have not been
divulged in the petition. Section 19 (3) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act 1988 puts a complete embargo on the court to grant stay of the
proceedings, which reads as under :-
(b) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any
error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority ,unless
it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in failure of
justice.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has not brought forth any cogent &
convincing material to manifest any infirmity or vulnerability of the order
impugned. No latitude can be granted in the matter of corruption which has
been consistently held by the Apex court in a catena of decisions. The
petitioner may raise the issue concerning validity of sanction order during the
course of trial. Therefore, we do not propose to say that the validity should be
examined at the stage of investigation or pretrial stage.
In the light of prolix and verbose discussions, we do not see any justifiable
ground warranting interference for quashing the impugned sanctioned order .
The writ petition is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed .
Order Date :- 17.12.2013
Naim

Dr. Dev Prasad Chakrabarty vs State Of U.P. And Another


A482(A)_3759_2014

Court No. – 50
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 3759 of 2014
Applicant :- Dr. Dev Prasad Chakrabarty
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Shanker Shukla,C.K.Parekh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and
perused the record.
This Crl. Misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashing of the entire proceeding of complaint case no.4309 of 2013, under
section 28 of Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of
Misuse) Act, 1994 read with Rules, 1996 pending in the court of C.J.M.,
Mirzapur and further prayer is to stay the proceeding of aforesaid complaint
case.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is a pathologist,
who is aged about 71 years and he has pathology at Varanasi in the name of
M/s D. P. Medicare Private Limited, Varanasi. From perusal of the complaint
it is clear that neither applicant is propriter nor he was found on the place,
running ‘Anil Diagnostic Centre’. He is not connected directly or indirectly
with the Anil Diagnostic Centr, where survey was conducted and the
complaint has been filed hence entire proceeding is liable to be quashed.
Learned AGA opposed aforesaid prayer.
Considered the submission of counsel for the parties. Since it requires
appreciation of evidence hence at this initial stage no interference is required.
The defence version of the applicant has to be considered by the court
concerned at appropriate stage.
If objection/discharge application is filed on behalf of the applicant within
30 days through counsel, it is expected that the court concerned will consider
and decide the same expeditiously, at appropriate stage, in accordance with
law.
Till application is decided by the court concerned at appropriate stage by a
reasoned and speaking order, no coercive steps will be taken against the
applicant.
However, if discharge application is rejected, applicant appears before the
courts below within 30 days and applies for bail, it is expected that the same
will be considered and disposed off expeditiously, in view of the principles
laid down by Full Bench of this Court in case of Amarawati and another Vs.
State of U.P., reported in 2004(57) ALR-390 and by the Apex Court in Lal
Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (4) SCC 437.
With these observations, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
hereby finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 7.2.2014
Pramod