Smt. Vimal Shukla vs State Of U.P. & Another


Court No. – 41
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 1802 of 2015
Applicant :- Smt. Vimal Shukla
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Applicant :- R.S. Singh,L.M. Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon’ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri L.M. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manish Dev, learned A.G.A. for
the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceeding of Case
No. 22437 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No. 34 of 2013 under Sections 109, 313, 315 I.P.C.
and 4/23 Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act,
1994, police station Kakadeo, District Kanpur Nagar.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicants is
disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the
purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his
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 submissions made at the
bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court 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 prayer for quashing the entire proceedings in pursuance of the charge-sheet is refused.
However, it is directed that in case the applicant appear and surrender before the court below
within 30 days from today and apply for bail, her prayer for bail shall 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 judgement passed by Hon’ble Apex Court
reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid
period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
It is made clear that the applicant will not be granted any further time by this Court for
surrendering before the Court below as directed above.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.1.2015


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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