Dismissed

Dr. Pratima Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2019A482/40831/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings under the PCT Act, holding disputed facts cannot be adjudicated at this stage. The court granted a 30-day reprieve from coercive action pending surrender and bail application.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing dismissed; 30-day window granted for surrender and bail application without coercive action.

Dr. Pratima Mishra Vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40831 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Dr. Pratima Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anuruddh Chaturvedi,Dhirendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing of the further proceeding of Complaint Case No. 965 of 2018, Dr. Shailendra Kumar MIshra Vs. Dr. Pratima MIshra, under section 23 & 25 of the Pre-conception and pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques ( Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1964, P.S. Chauri Chaura, District Gorakhpur, pending in the court of C.J.M., Gorakhpur.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the applicant is running Ultra Sound Centre in the name and style of Dr. Pratima Mishra Ultra Sound Centre and is operating ultra sound machine. On the basis of the said allegation and after making requisite enquiry the present complaint has been filed against the applicant.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the said machine is not operational and on the basis of false allegation, the present complaint has been filed. and no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present application has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.

¶9

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 applicants. 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.

¶10

At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 , the prayer for quashing further proceeidng is refused.

¶11

However, it is directed that if the applicant

¶12

appears/surrenders before the court below within thirty days from today and apply for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of settled law laid down 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 in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).

¶13

For a period of thirty days from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶14

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 25.11.2019

¶16

Dr. Pratima Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Pratima Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Singh Kashyap Alias Rahul Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakeel Ahmad Beg Vs State of U.P. and Another

Daljeet Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another