Dr. Dheer Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another


?Court No. – 49

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 33116 of 2013

Applicant :- Dr. Dheer Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- R.P. Mishra,A.K. Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

Hon’ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This� application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the� revisional order dated 23.7.2013 passed by Additional District/Sessions Judge, Court No. 2 Bijnor in Criminal Revision No. 249 of 2012 and also to quash the order dated 10.7.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor in complaint case No. 2448 of 2012 under the provisions of� Pre-conception and Pre-natural diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the allegation against the applicant is that in the complaint it has been mentioned by the opposite party No. 2 that the applicant was found running the Ultrasound machine illegally on 16.12.2007 which was thereafter sealed.� It is further contended that thereafter the applicant broke the seal and� was found running the machine again and therefore, proceedings were drawn against the applicant.� It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the summoning order passed by the Magistrate in the year 2010 is a non speaking� order� and by the revisional order the revision filed against the said order has been dismissed.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant.� All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the orders dated 23.7.2013 and 10.7.2012 is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicant be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 3.10.2013/faraz





Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s