Court No. – 38
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. – 10449 of 2015
Petitioner :- Dr. Chandra Shekhar Gupta
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dileep Kumar,Rajrshi Gupta
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate
Hon’ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A.
By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the
petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 10/4/2015 and 18/7/2014 in
terms of which the application for discharge moved by the petitioner has come to
be rejected. The proceedings in question which stand registered as Case
No.20873/2013, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pharenda Vs. Dr. Chandra Shekhar
Gupta, alleged commission of offence under Section 3/23 of The Pre-Conception
and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection),Act, 1994
Police Station Brijmanganj, District Maharajganj.
Learned counsel for the applicant has taken the Court through the various
statements recorded before the Court below to contend that there was no material
that the machine was requisitioned by the petitioner or that any ultra sound
examination was undertaken. It is contended that the machine in question had been
requisitioned only for the purposes of demonstration by another Doctor and there
was no evidence that the clinic of the petitioner was being run or the machine
being utilized for the purposes of carrying out pre-natal examination or indulging in
the offence of aiding people in sex selection.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the statements of the members of
the raiding party who according to him failed to establish the case that the clinic
was owned by the petitioner or that the ultra sound machine in question belonged
Having heard counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the raiding party
recorded that the machine in question was found at the premises of Satyam Clinic
in Brijmanganj, Maharajganj upon a surprise inspection carried out by them. The
statement further records that the petitioner was found present there and that the
machine in question was found present in one of the rooms attached with the clinic.
There is no material on record to establish that the petitioner was registered under
the provisions of the Act aforementioned or that the clinic had obtained registration
for having in its possession the ultra sound machine.
Insofar as the issue of discharge is concerned, this Court bears in mind the dictum
laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Rajiv Thapar & Ors Vs.Madan
Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 and State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Vs. N. Suresh Rajan & Ors, 2014 (11) SCC
709, wherein the Apex Court has clearly held that the stage of discharge is not a
stage for a mini trial and that the scope of inquiry at this stage is only as to whether
there is any ground for presuming that the offence had been committed and not
whether the accused could be acquitted on the material relied upon by him.
In light of the above facts, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the orders of
the Court below.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.4.2015
Court No. – 38