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

Gagandev vs State of Punjab


 

CRM-M-4173-2014

CRM-M-4173-2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-4173-2014
Date of decision: 04.02.2014

Gagandev
….. Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
….. Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
PRESENT: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. PS Ahluwalia, Advocate for the complainant.
R.P. NAGRATH, J. (ORAL)
This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 329 dated 11.12.2013
registered under Sections 498-A/323/506/313 IPC at Police Station
Patran, District Patiala.
Marriage of the petitioner with the complainant-Rama Jindal
was solemnized on 12.12.2010 and a girl child was born after 2 years of
the marriage. Second time when the complainant conceived a child that
sex determination test was conducted as per story in the FIR and
petitioner was putting pressure upon the complainant to get the pregnancy
aborted. There is allegation of beating as well as kicking the lady on her
abdomen and on medical examination it was found that there was alleged
history of assault also. It also seems from the facts that for sexCRM-M-4173-2014 -2-
determination of the child a complaint has been filed by the Civil
Surgeon under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques
(Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994.
Looking into these serious allegations, no ground is made
out to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
Dismissed.
February 04, 2014 ( R.P. NAGRATH )
rishu JUDGE