Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:34482 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7818 of 2025 Applicant :- Dr. Mohd. Naim Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Adya Prasad Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard Sri Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kamlesh Kr. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking quashing of the complaint case No. 657 of 2025, under Section 23, 25 of Pre- Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, P.S. Badhalganj, District Gorakhpur as well as summoning order dated 9.1.2025. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that inspection of the premises of the applicant was conducted on 28.5.2022 thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the applicant by the C.M.O. on 1.6.2022 for making certain violations of the Pre- Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and the rules framed therein which was duly replied by the applicant on 6.6.2022, but the C.M.O., Gorakhpur did not pass any order after considering the reply of the applicant. Thereafter, the impugned complaint was filed on 6.1.2025 after almost about three years from the date of inspection. Therefore, the proceeding is absolutely malicious as the applicant has fulfilled all the requirements of the Act and the Rules framed therein. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the pleadings raised by the applicant are his defence which cannot considered at this stage, being disputed questions of fact. 5. After hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the inspection of the premises of the applicant was conducted on 28.5.2022. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued by the C.M.O. on 1.6.2022 which was also replied by the applicant on 6.6.2022, but there is nothing on record to show that any decision was taken by the C.M.O. after receiving the reply. However, the complaint was filed on 6.1.2025 i.e. almost after 2½ years of the inspection. 6. Considering the fact that the grounds raised by the applicant are his defence, quashing of the complaint is refused. However, applicant is permitted to appear before the court below and raise all his defence available to him. 7. It is further provided that after appearance, the applicant may move an application before the court below under Section 205 Cr.P.C. for his exemption from personal appearance. In case such an application is moved, the court below will decide the same in view of the guidelines of this Court mentioned in paragraphs No. 14 and 15 of the judgement in Shlok Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another; application u/s 482 No. 2937 of 2025. 8. In view of the above, the application is disposed of. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Vandana Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad