Dismissed

Ramji Panday v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2024A482/26066/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The court held that the decision turned on questions of fact, validity of prima facie evidence of illegal hospital operation, and recovery of articles, which matter for trial court.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. Proceedings against the applicant are not quashed.

Ramji Panday vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:128266

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26066 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ramji Panday Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mukul Kumar,Satish Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet no. 18 of 2022, dated 23.1.2022 and summoning order dated 30.01.2024, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Kanpur Dehat and cognizance order dated 22.12.2023 as well as entire proceeding of Case No.680 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No.382 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420 IPC and Section 15(2) of Indian Medical Counseling Act, 1956, P.S. Mangalpur, District Kanpur Dehat, pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Kanpur Dehat.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that; the FIR has been registered after a delay of 29 days and there is no explanation of delay in lodging the said FIR; nothing incriminating has come against the applicant in the entire investigation; the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case; the statement of independent witnesses have not been recorded by the police; nothing has been recovered from the possession of applicant; the applicant is neither running any hospital nor the owner of any hospital nor the Investigating Officer has collected any evidence which shows that he is the owner and running the said hospital in question, hence no

¶9

offence under Sections 419, 420 IPC and Section 15(2) Indian Medical Counseling Act, is made out against the applicant.

¶10

Per-contra , learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and argued that looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant.

¶11

In the instant matter, the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record it can also not be held that the impugned criminal proceeding are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Similarly no such illegality, perversity or any other substantial error could be pointed out in the impugned summoning order, so as to warrant any interference by this court in exercise of powers u/s 482 CrP.C.

¶12

Perusal of record and on examination of document placed before the Court, its prima-facie established that on a raid conducted by the Chief Medical Officer and his team, it was found that the applicant was running hospital illegally without any registration and recovery was also made from the possession of the applicant. Keeping in view the recovery of illegal medicines and articles and also the fact that the applicant was running hospital illegally without any registration, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out.

¶13

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 8.8.2024 A. Tripathi

¶15

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶16

Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramji Panday v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramji Panday 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhat Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Jakir vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nazir Alias Mohd Nazir and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohit and Another vs State of U.P.

Mukesh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jairam Nishad vs State of U.P. and Another