Allahabad High Court
/9930/2025 of MOHD. LAEEK Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF HOME LKO. AND ANOTHER on 12 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9930 of 2025 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9930 of 2025
Court No. - 14
HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.04.2025 passed in S.T. No. 316 of 2022, (State Vs. Dr. Mohammad Aatif & Ors.), arising out of F.I.R. No. 332 of 2021, under Sections 304, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 34 of National Medical Commission Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Bahraich.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, who is Technician (O.T.) working in the alleged hospital, has falsely been implicated in the present case. As per prosecution case, applicant as well as Dr. Mohd. Aatif, who were not authorized to do the alleged surgery, but the surgery of the patient was conducted by Dr. Mohd. Aatif and the applicant, as a result, the patient died. It is further submitted that the trial court framed the charges for the offence under Section 304 I.P.C. and Section 34 of National Medical Commission Act, 2019, without considering the entire facts, as only charge for the offences under Section 304A was to be framed against the applicant. It is, thus, submitted that the indulgence of this Court is necessary.
4. Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that as per the prosecution case, surgery was conducted by Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ghulam Mohammad Kamil Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mohd. Laeek .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s)
unauthorized persons, namely, Dr. Mohd. Aatif, who was B.H.M.S. and the applicant, who was the Technician (O.T.) and all these facts were considered by the court below while passing the impugned order. It is also submitted that the charges can be altered by the trial court at any stage. It is, thus, submitted that the application is liable to be dismissed.
5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R. as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that as per the prosecution case, the surgery of the patient was done by Dr. Mohd. Aatif along with applicant, who were not authorized for surgery. It is further evident that charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer and after considering all these facts, charge was framed by the trial court under Section 304 I.P.C. and Section 34 of National Medical Commission Act. Moreover, it is provided in Section 239 of BNSS that, in case, any evidence is found, the charges can be altered by the court below at any stage.
6. In view of above facts and discussions, there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial court.
7. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. December 12, 2025 VKS A482 No. 9930 of 2025 2 (Rajeev Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench