Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89895 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13853 of 2025 Applicant :- Vikram Aditya @ Vikram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Viveka Nand Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Vivekanand Rai, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State. 2. The instant applicant has been preferred for challenging the entire proceedings of Case No.22422 of 2023 (State vs. Vikram Aditya @ Vikram and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.103 of 2023 in pursuance to sections 18, 23, 25 of Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1974") and sections 120B/315 I.P.C., P.S. Kirawali, District- Agra along with cognizance/summoning order dated 05.07.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra. 3. Learned counsel for applicant sought the attention of Court over the questions which has been put by the concerned Investigating Officer before certain witnesses and the same has been answered, through which it has been indicated that no offence has been made out against the applicant and it is only the preparation of certain unregistered portable ultrasound machines and dead or alive fetus has been recovered. The statement made before Investigating Officer has been heavily relied by learned counsel for applicant through which it has been submitted that there is hardly any offence attracted to be carried out against the applicant, although applicant has already been granted bail by learned court concerned and as such the entire proceeding has been put under challenge. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the applicant and submitted that it is apparent from those questions-answers that unregistered portable ultrasound machines have been recovered and operation of such activity is strictly banned under the Act of 1974 and as such the applicant has been charge-sheeted, whereupon cognizance of offence has already been taken up by learned court concerned. 5. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, one thing is crystal clear that conduction of any type of activity, which is not recognized through the competent authority in shape of having unregistered portable ultrasound machine, which is not disputed by learned counsel for applicant, initiate proceeding under relevant sections which has been mentioned while preferring report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by concerned Investigating Officer; so far as the questions-answers are concerned, which happened between witness and the Investigating Officer shall subject to further having judicial scrutiny during trial by competent court itself. Nothing can be determined only on the basis of questions, which has been put by the concerned Investigating Officer before witness since the same has to be examined during trial itself. 6. In view of above-mentioned facts and circumstances, no ground made out for interfering in the proceedings which is continued against the applicant in shape of Case No.22422 of 2023 (State vs. Vikram Aditya @ Vikram and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.103 of 2023 in pursuance to sections 18, 23, 25 of the Act of 1974 and sections 120B/315 I.P.C., P.S. Kirawali, District- Agra. 7. The instant application stands dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 Saif Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad