Court No. – 50
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 22460 of 2014
Applicant :- Laxmi Ultrasound Centre Tamkuhiraj, Kushi Nagar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J.
This Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed
with the prayer to quash the Complaint Case No.1088/2013 under section
4(3), 29, and Rule 9(4), Rule 10(1-A) of the Diagnostic Techniques
(Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 read with Rule 1996 PS.Tariya
Sujan, District Kushinagar and further prayer is to stay the proceeding of
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and
perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant running a
diagnostic centre with the name and style of Laxmi Ultrasound Centre,
Tamkuhiraj, Kushi Nagar and the same is registered under the relevant
provision bearing Registration No.10/2003. Showing gross irregularities in
functioning of the applicant at ultra sound centre with the allegation that there
was violation of pre-conception and Pre Natal Diagonstic
Techniques(Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 read with Rule 1996 the
present complaint has been filed without giving any proper opportunity in
which applicant has been summoned. There was no reliable evidence to show
that the case was handled by determination of fetus by the applicant, hence
the proceeding being malicious is liable to be quashed.
Learned AGA opposed aforesaid prayer.
Considered the submissions of counsel for the parties. Since it requires
appreciation of evidence, hence at this initial stage no interference is required.
However, if 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.
Till disposal of the discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken
against the applicant.
If 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.
With these observations, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
hereby finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 4.7.2014
Court No. – 50