Dismissed

Sanjay Kumar (Manager Unnati Sonography Centre) and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2019A482/41707/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC, the applicant challenged a summoning order in a case under the PNDT Act. The court held that since the complaint was filed by a public servant, the court need not examine the statement, and found no illegality in the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing dismissed; leave granted to move for bail before the court below.

Sanjay Kumar (Manager Unnati… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41707 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar (Manager Unnati Sonography Centre) And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Ajit Pratap Kushwaha,Amar Bahadur Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicants for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 11.10.2019 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 11112 of 2019, (State of U.P. Vs. Sanjay Kumar and others), under Sections 3(1), 2(3)/ 23-25 of Preconception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, Police Station Atrauliya, District Azamgarh, pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Azamgarh.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that on 25.09.2019, an inspection was made at Unnati Sonography Centre, Budhanpur, which is alleged to be run by Dr. Jamil Ahmad (applicant no.4), who was not present there and in his place, ultra sonography was being done by one Sanjay Kumar (applicant no.1).

¶8

On the basis of the said allegation, a complaint has been lodged by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Budhanpur and learned Magistrate has summoned the applicants to face trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that without probing into the matter and even without recording the statements of the witnesses present there, the applicants have been illegally summoned to face trial.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA for the State has supported the impugned summoning order and has submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 is a Public Servant and on the basis of his complaint, present proceedings has been initiated against the applicants. Being a public servant, his statement is not to be recorded, as such, impugned order passed by the court below is just, proper and legal and does not call for any interference by this Court at this stage.

¶11

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that complaint has been filed by a public servant, as such, the Magistrate need

¶12

not to examine him. Moreover, at the stage of summoning, only prima facie case is to be seen, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the court below.

¶13

Present application under Section 482 CrPC is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

However, in case, the applicants appear and move an application for bail before the court below, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

¶15

Order Date :- 3.12.2019 Nadim

Sanjay Kumar (Manager Unnati Sonography Centre) and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar (Manager Unnati Sonography Centre) and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jay Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogesh @Kalu and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Annapurna Gupta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anand Kumar Gupta and 2 others Vs State of U.P. and another

Savita Patel @ Dhanni Devi Vs Suresh Kumar Patel and 2 Others

Aftab Alam Vs State of U.P. and Another