Allahabad High Court
Ajay Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 October, 2023
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:189705
Court No. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23532 of 2023
Applicant :- Ajay Singh Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Pandey,Hawaldar Ram
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
1-Heard Mr. Himanshu Panday, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Raj Mani Yadav, learned Additional Government Advocate assisted by Ms. Priyanka Singh, learned brief holder for the State of U.P./opposite party no.1.
2-This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 03.04.2022, cognizance order dated 15.10.2022 and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 42398 of 2022 (State Vs. Ajay Yadav and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 22 of 2022, under Section 420 I.P.C. and Section 15 of Indian Medical Council Act, Police Station Naunahara, District Ghazipur pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur.
3-Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that opposite party no. 2- Chief Medical Officer, on the complaint of three students namely Anju Rajbhar, Pooja Maurya and Saroj Singh, to whom Lord Krishna Hospital and Atal Paramedical College gave admission for B.Sc and A.N.M. course, lodged F.I.R. on 30.01.2022 for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. and Section 15 of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 against the management / operator of the college and hospital alleging inter-alia that they, adopting different modus-operandi, by making mis-statement, illegally taken their admission, and later-on, on enquiry, it was revealed that on the date of taking admission, the college was neither having registration nor affiliation. The complicity of the applicant came into light during investigation. After culmination of the investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant, on which the concerned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the applicant.
4-The main substratum of the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has no concern with the admission of the complainants and no offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant has opened the Lord Krishna Hospital in the year 2017 and got the same registered in January, 2017 which was valid till 31.03.2017 and later on it was renewed on 07.05.2018 which was valid till 31.03.2019. The said hospital is being run and managed by a non-profitable organisation / charitable society namely Mata Muliya Devi Gramothan Sikshan Sansthan with the aim and object of establishing medical colleges, paramedical colleges as well as hospitals. The process which has been floated by Atal Paramedical Institute is that they get the students through U.P. State Medical Faculty, Lucknow. Students have made complaint on the false facts with their ulterior motive.
5-Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State refuting the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant submitted that on the complaint of three students namely Anju Rajbhar, Pooja Maurya and Saroj Singh, Additional Chief Medical Officer was appointed as nodal officer to make enquiry in the matter, who has made spot inspection and also inspected the hospital and college in question. During inspection, manager was not found in the hospital and his mobile phone was also found switched off. No student was found in the premises where the college was running and basic infrastructure and amenities like classroom, Operation Theatre, medical facility, etc. were lacking. Accordingly, enquiry report was submitted after due enquiry and thereafter, F.I.R. was lodged in the matter on 06.01.2019. At that time, hospital was not registered. Upon perusal of F.I.R. and on the basis of the allegations made therein as well as material against the applicant, as per prosecution case, the cognizable offence against the applicant is made out. The criminal proceedings against the applicant cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. Hence this application is liable to be dismissed.
6-Having examined the matter in its totality, I find that it is not in dispute that on the date of taking admission of the complainants, there was no registration of the hospital. The complainant Anju Rajbhar and Antima in their statement have stated inter-alia that they got their admission cancelled, but the applicant did not return their fee despite running their from pillar to post. The complainant Pooja Maurya in her statement stated that applicant had taken Rs.75,000/- from her at the time of her admission but later on at the time of issuance of admission card, he was mounting pressure to pay some more amount. Similarly, the complainant Saroj Singh in her statement stated that applicant had taken Rs.90,000/- from her at the time of her admission but later on at the time of issuance of admission card, he was demanding some more amount. The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. This Court is of the view that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put to an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is well settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sparingly, only in such an appropriate cases, where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings or where allegations made in First Information Report or charge-sheet and the materials relied in support of same, on taking their face value and accepting in their entirety do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage, which can be more appropriately gone into by the trial court at the appropriate stage.
7-At this stage it would not be appropriate to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only prima facie satisfaction of the Court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required. The impugned criminal proceeding under the facts of this case cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. There is no good ground to invoke inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court.
8-The relief as sought by the applicant through the instant application is hereby refused.
9-This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
10-Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below within a week.
Order Date :- 3.10.2023
Saurabh
