Dismissed

Dr Rajeev Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2023A482/22026/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant sought to quash criminal proceedings alleging pre-marital tests. The court dismissed the application, holding the applicant not entitled to relief, and directed them to prefer a discharge application at the trial stage.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed and consigned to record; applicant directed to prefer discharge application.

Dr Rajeev Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Medical Negligence | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:139912

¶2

Court No. - 35

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22026 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Dr Rajeev Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Onkar Nath Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Onkar Nath, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Pushpendra Singh Jatav, learned AGA who appears for the State.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.PC. has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceedings of Charge-sheet No. 231A/21/22 dated 03.06.2022 in Criminal Case No. 14841 of 2022 (State of U.P. Vs. Dr. Rajeev Kumar), arising out of case crime No. 187 of 2021, under Sections 315, 120-B IPC and Sections 23, 25, 18 of Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (regulation and prevention of Misuse) Act 1994 and Sections 4 (1) (c) of Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques amendment Act 2002 (Janma Purva Takniki Parikshan Adhiniyam, 2002), Police StationEtmadaula, District Agra, pending before the court of CJM Agra.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated in the case in question as he had further point of time committed the said offence. According to him, he was at the time of inspection/raid was preoccupied somewhere else and he cannot even in his remotest dreams ever think to commit type of offence.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has made factual averments in this regard, on being pointed out as to whether there is any jurisdictional error committed by the court below while

¶10

proceedings with the matter, learned counsel for the applicant could not give any reply in this regard. Shri Pushpendra Singh Jatav who appears for the states submits that in view of the judgment in the Case of M/S Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others , reported in AIR 2021 SC 192 . roving enquiry cannot be permitted in the present proceedings. Particularly, at this stage, when the trial is yet to commence and thus whatever defences, the applicant is seeking to raise are always available to him to be raised at the stage of the trial.

¶11

Considering the submission of the rival parties, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is not entitled to any relief. Accordinlgy, the application is dismissed and consigned to record .

¶12

It is always open for the applicant to prefer appropriate application for discharge and this Court is of the opinion that when the said application is preferred, the same will be dealt with and in accordance with most expeditions, in accordance with law of the land on the said subject.

¶13

Order Date :- 13.7.2023

¶14

Ashutosh

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dr Rajeev Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Rajeev Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar Sengar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vivek Kumar Singh Vs the State of U.P. Thr. Its Prin Secy. and 6 Others

Poonam Kumari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prem Chandra Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Km. Nitu Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Liton Sarkar and 5 Others Vs Union of India and 3 Others