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