Keshavdutta Dixit vs State Of U.P. And Another

eLegalix – Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System (Judgment/Order in Text Format)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Deputy Registrar(Copying).


?Court No. – 50

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 41477 of 2014

Applicant :- Keshavdutta Dixit
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Satyam Narayan
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.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned complaint has been filed under section 22(2) read with section 28 of Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Determination of Sex) Act, 1994, PS. Civil Lines, District Meerut.� The date which was fixed 28-29-30 April, 2014 was cancelled and as such no counseling took place even any amount was not deposited in the account and as such no offence is made out. However, when the complaint was filed� on the same day, the applicant has been summoned in the impugned complaint which is liable to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the aforesaid prayer.
Considered the submissions.
In view of the Act, 1994 the determination of sex is prohibited.� The advertisment was� organised for� genetic counseling� regarding choice of sex of child. Now the dispute is required to be examined by the court concerned whether the amount was received by the applicant or not regarding which there was advertisment and account number was given for deposit of fees those� who organised for genetic counseling to choose the sex of child. The contention of the applicant may or may not be correct,� the court concerned where the proceeding is pending, is expected to scrutinise the material/evidence very carefully so any innocent person� is� not prosecuted, harassed and held guilty.
However, if objection/ discharge application is filed through counsel on behalf of the applicant within thirty days, it is expected that the court concerned will consider and decide the same expeditiously on merit by a speaking and reasoned order, at appropriate stage, in accordance with law.
If objection/discharge application is rejected and the applicant appears before the courts below within thirty 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. I
With the above observation this application is finally disposed off.�

Order Date :- 24.9.2014

Visit for more Judgments/Orders delivered at Allahabad High Court and Its Bench at Lucknow. Disclaimer


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