ANJU GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Dr. Anju Goswami against State of U.P. and Dr. Devendra Agarwal, Additional Chief Medical Officer/ Nodal Officer, P.C.P.N.D.T., Mathura, with a prayer for quashing impugned summoning order dated 15.2.2020 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 294 of 2020, titled as Dr. Devendra Agarwal Vs. Dr. Upendra Goswami and others, P.S. Kosikalan, District Mathura, pending in the court of C.J.M., Mathura.

(2.) Learned counsel for applicant argued that a complaint under section 28 of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act was filed in the Court of C.J.M., Mathura, by Dr. Devendra Agarwal, Additional Chief Medical Officer/ Nodal Officer, P.C.P.N.D.T., Mathura, against Dr. Upendra Goswami, Dr. Anju Goswami and Karmveer @ Rajveer, for offences punishable u/s 3A, 4, 5, 6, 23 and 29 of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act, P.S. Kosikalan, District Mathura, whereas entire accusation was said to be a raid conducted by Civil Surgeon, Palwal, Haryana, and his team, which was with no jurisdiction to make any such raid of Ultrasound Centre in Mathura, i.e. within the territory of State of U.P. Learned Presiding Judge failed to appreciate this fact that the contention made in the complaint was not of any constitution of offence, as above. The document filed with complaint was Ultrasonography of one Sushma, whereas it was said to be of one Kamla and the same was of one Sushma, whereas no P.C.P.N.D.T. was made by the applicant. Offence against the applicant was not made out. In the like circumstance, in a proceeding u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 13522 of 2020 filed by Dr. Upendra Goswami, a coordinate Bench of this court has stayed the further proceedings of the case against Dr. Upendra Goswami till disposal of the application. The matter with regard to present criminal case regarding Dr. Upendra Goswami is pending before this court in above previously instituted proceeding u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and order of the Court has been annexed with the paper book. The notification issued by the State of Haryana constituting a committee of appropriate authority was with a specific mention that the jurisdiction is for the territory of State of Haryana and not for the State of U.P., whereas this complaint was filed by the Additional Chief Medical Officer/ Nodal Officer, P.C.P.N.D.T., Mathura, but no such raid was conducted by any appropriate authority authorised by the State of U.P. for conducting this raid at Mathura. The factual contention was not making out any offence against the applicant. The witnesses are pet witnesses, who have previously taken part in another proceeding of raid under P.C.P.N.D.T. Act. The Apex Court in PUCL Vs. Union of India, 1997 1 SCC 301 as well as in K.S. Puttaswamy Vs. Union of India, 2017 10 SCC 1 has propounded that if any procedure is prescribed and given then that is to be determined and allowing defiance of the same will dehorse the fundamental rights, in the administration of criminal law, the ends would justify the means would amount to declaring the Government authorities may violate any directions of the Supreme Court or mandatory statutory rules in order to secure evidence against the citizens. It would lead to manifest arbitrariness and would promote the scant regard to the procedure and fundamental rights of the citizens, and law laid down by the Apex Court. Accordingly, this case be heard on merits after obtaining reply from the State of U.P. along with previously instituted application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. by Dr. Upendra Goswami. Meanwhile protection may be given to the applicant, as has been given in the case of Dr. Upendra Goswami.

(3.) Learned AGA vehemently opposed.