Smt. Gayatri Devi vs State Of U.P. And Another


Court No. – 50
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 22520 of 2014
Applicant :- Smt. Gayatri Devi
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- R.K. Shahi
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.
This Crl. Misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashing of the entire proceeding of complaint case no.1101 of 2013 as well
as summoning order dated 17.4.2013 passed by the C.J.M., Kushinagar at
Padrauna and further prayer is to stay the proceeding of aforesaid complaint
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was running the
diagnostic centre in the name of Bharat Diagnostic Centre as per guidelines
provided, according to rules and law. On the basis of false allegation
impugned complaint has been filed with the allegation of violation of
provisions of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques
(Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. If fact applicant has not committed
any offence. There is no evidence on record with the complainant to show that
there was any case of test with regard to the sex of fetus, however, without
taking cognizance and without application of mind the Magistrate, summoned
applicant, which is without jurisdiction. Since the complaint was lodged on
the basis of false allegation hence entire proceeding is liable to be quashed.
Learned AGA opposed aforesaid prayer.
Considered the submission of counsel for the parties. Since the disputed
question of facts requires appreciation of evidence hence at this initial stage it
is not a fit case for interference under section 482 Cr.P.C. The defence version
of the applicants has to be considered by the court concerned at appropriate
If objection/discharge application is filed on behalf of the applicant within
30 days through counsel, it is expected that the court concerned will consider
and decide the same on merit by speaking and reasoned order, as
expeditiously as possible, at appropriate stage, in accordance with law, on the
basis of evidence adduced by the parties.
Till application is decided on merit by the court concerned, at appropriate
stage, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants.
However, if discharge application is rejected, applicant appears before the
courts below within 30 days and applies for bail, it is expected that the same
will be considered and disposed off expeditiously, if possible on the same
day, 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


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