Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:6976 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38065 of 2024 Applicant :- Dr Virendra Kumar Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 27.08.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat in Complaint Case No.14958 of 2022 (Dr. I.H. Khan Vs. M/s Sai Nath Hospital & Others), under Sections-25/27/28 of Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) Act, 1994, Police Station-Rura, District-Kanpur Dehat. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has been falsely implicated as his forged degree as well as aadhaar card and other documents have been misused by M/s Sai Nath Hospital, though, applicant was not aware about running of the same. It is further submitted that applicant is not associated, in any manner, with the ultrasound centre of M/s Sai Nath Hospital. It is also submitted that applicant has been posted in Shahjahanpur. 4. Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that ground raised by the applicant is his defence which cannot be considered, at this stage. 5. After hearing the submission of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that an inspection of the premises of M/s Sai Nath Hospital, Shivaji Nagar, Kanpur Dehat was conducted by SDM and Deputy CMO on 05.09.2022 and several irregularities were found in the ultrasound centre of M/s Sai Nath Hospital, Kanpur Dehat and it was also found that though the name of applicant was mentioned as authorized doctor but he was not found in the ultrasound centre. 6. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant that he was not associated in any manner with the aforesaid hospital or its ultrasound centre and his document have been forged and his name was wrongly mentioned as authorized doctor in the ultrasound centre is concerned, this defence of the applicant can be considered during trial but cannot be a ground to quash the impugned proceeding. 7. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned proceeding as well as in the impugned order, by which the discharge application of the applicant was rejected. 8. Accordingly, present application is rejected. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 S.Chaurasia Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM CHAURASIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad