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
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
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
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
Court No. – 50