Disposed

Umesh Chandra Verma @ Umesh Chandra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC28 May 2025A482/4306/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash proceedings under IPC Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and Indian Medical Council Act regarding an unregistered hospital. Court stayed the proceedings pending consideration of submissions that ingredients of cheating were absent and statutory penalties applied instead.

What did the court decide?

Stay granted on Criminal Case No. 10815/2024 pending hearing in July 2025.

Umesh Chandra Verma @ Umesh Chandra vs State of U.P… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4306 of 2025

¶3

Applicant :- Umesh Chandra Verma @ Umesh Chandra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Maurya,Kanchan,Pawan Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

The present application under Sectio 482 Cr.P.C/528 B.N.S.S has been preferred with the following main prayer:-

¶6

" Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble High Court may graciously be pleased:-

¶7

I. Allow this petition and be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 10815/2024 (State Vs. Umesh Chandra Verma), arising out of F.I.R. No. 182 of 2024, dated 27.06.2024, registered at Police Station Baskhari, District Ambedkar Nagar, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC and Section 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and pending before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, including the charge sheet dated 31.07.2024 filed under Section 420 IPC, as the same is manifestly unjust, baseless, and constitutes an abuse of the process of law.

¶8

II. Issue a writ, order, or direction commanding the Respondents to forthwith unseal and release the premises of Sparsh Hospital & Trauma Centre, situated at Akbarpur Road, Baskhari, District Ambedkar Nagar, which has been illegally and arbitrarily sealed on 18.06.2024 without any judicial order, without issuance of notice or drawing of a panchnama, and in blatant violation of the due process guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India, thereby paralyzing the Petitioner's right to livelihood and medical service to the public.

¶9

III. Direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to resume lawful medical practice and operation of the hospital, subject to compliance with any statutory formalities, which the Petitioner undertakes to complete within a reasonable time as stipulated by this Hon'ble Court."

¶10

The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R dated 27.06.2024 has been lodged under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C and Section 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, by respondent no. 3 i.e Dr. Ramanand Siddharth, Additional Chief Medical Officer against three named accused persons including the present applicant alleging therein that the accused persons are running the Sparsh Hospital and Trauma Centre without there being registration of the same. The police, after investigation, has filed the chargesheet against the applicant, who is the owner/proprietor of the hospital under Section 420 I.P.C. The court has taken cognizance and passed the summoning order. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present application has been preferred.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that no offence is made out against the applicant under section 420 IPC as none of the ingredients for making an offence under Section 420 I.P.C. is made out. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 I.P.C. would be made out if the ingredients provided under Section 415 I.P.C are present and these ingredients are that the person cheated must be dishonestly induced to (a) deliver property to any person; or (b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. These ingredients are absent in the present case as per the allegation made in the F.I.R. against the applicant. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court passed in the case of A.M. Mohan vs. the State Represented by SHO and Another , arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.9598 of 2022, reported in 2024 INSC 233 and Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in 2024 10 SCC 690.

¶12

It is further submitted that the hospital has yet not started running, it is still under construction. The applicants are not having the registration for the reason that certain no objection certificates required from different departments are still awaited.

¶13

It is further submitted that the Uttar Pradesh Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Rules, 2016 has been framed under Section 54 (1) of the Clinical Establishment (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 and Rule 32 provides for penalty if the hospital is running without registration. For convenience, Rule 32 is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶14

"In keeping with the provisions of sub sections (1),(2) and (3) and section 41 and sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 42 of the Act whoever carries on a clinical establishment without registration or whoever willfully disobeys any direction, or obstructs the authority or any officer or team authorized by it or withholds any such information or provides false information shall be liable to a monetary penalty.

¶15

Whoever carried on a clinical establishment without registration, shall, on first contravention be liable to a monetary penalty up to ten times of registration fee, for second contribution to a monetary penalty which may extend to twenty times of registration fee and for third time contravention to penalty which may extend to fifty times of registration fee and for any further contravention the registration will be rejected/canceled.

¶16

Whoever knowingly serves in a clinical establishmem which is not duly registered under this Act, shall be liable to a monetary penalty which may extend to twenty five

¶17

thousand rupees."

¶18

It is further submitted that if any offence is committed by the applicant, then the action is provided under Rule 32 of the Rules, 2016 and no criminal proceedings could be initiated for the same. There is no such allegation or evidence on record that any patient was admitted or was under treatment in the hospital.

¶19

Learned A.G.A is unable to dispute the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant and he prays for and is granted three weeks' time for filing counter affidavit.

¶20

Two weeks' time thereafter is granted to learned counsel for the applicant for filing rejoinder affidavit.

¶21

List this case in the second week of July, 2025.

¶22

Till the next date of listing, criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 10815/2024 (State Vs. Umesh Chandra Verma), arising out of F.I.R. No. 182 of 2024, dated 27.06.2024, registered at Police Station Baskhari, District Ambedkar Nagar, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC and Section 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and pending before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar shall remain stayed.

¶23

Order Date :- 28.5.2025 DiVYa

¶24

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Umesh Chandra Verma @ Umesh Chandra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Chandra Verma @ Umesh Chandra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

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

Parvati Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and 4 Others

Ashish and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Arun Kumar Agnihotri vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Nagar Vikas, Anubhag 6,LKO and 4 Others

Hansraj and Others vs Addl. Commissioner, Judicial Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Shalini Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 7 Others

Rajesh Kumar and 82 Others vs Parth Sarthi Sen Sharma Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health Lko. and Another