✦ Allahabad High Court

BNSS No. 36962 of 2025 · Allahabad High Court

BNSS No. 36962 of 2025SAURABH SRIVASTAVA3 min read

Case at a glance

Bench
SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Outcome

Allowed

The instant application stands allowed, accordingly

Key paragraphs

  • Para 77. In view of aforesaid discussion, impugned charge sheet dated 18.06.2023 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 14.08.2023 and entire proceeding of Case no. 4157 of 2023 (State vs. Rashi) arising out of Case Crime no. 210 of 2023 under sections 420 IPC and 15(2)…

Judgment

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash charge sheet no. 208 of 2023 dated 18.06.2023 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 14.08.2023 in Case no. 4157 of 2023 (State vs. Rashi) arising out of Case Crime no. 210 of 2023 under sections 420 IPC and 15(2) and 15(3) of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, PS- Bahjoi, District Sambhal.

3.

While challenging the entire proceeding of said case along with charge sheet and cognizance/summoning order, learned counsel for applicant has submitted that Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 has already been repealed on 25.9.2020 and replaced by National Medical Commission Act, 2019 in spite of that, FIR was lodged on 8.5.2023 in the repealed Act wherein charge sheet was also submitted on dated 18.6.2023 in the repealed Act and more so, learned court concerned also took cognizance of offence under the repealed Act on dated 14.8.2023 and once any specific Act has been repealed, the process for continuing the prosecution against the applicant become redundant.

4.

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application but did not dispute the legal grounds as raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

5.

After having the rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that 2 NA528 No. 36962 of 2025 the legal arguments which have been raised by learned counsel for applicant, seems to be justified since Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 wherein cognizance of offence has been taken, has already been repealed on

25.9.2020 and replaced by National Medical Commission Act, 2019. To elaborate further Section 60 of National Medical Commission Act, 2019 is reproduced herein below: "Section 60 - (1) With effect from such date as the Central Government may appoint in this behalf, the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) shall stand repealed and the Medical Council of India constituted under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act shall stand dissolved. "

6.

It is abundantly clear from the foregoing provision that, any action or cognizance taken under the repealed Act of 1956 is indeed void. Insofar as attraction of section 420 IPC is concerned, the same has been fastened upon the applicant in connection with the offence of said Special Act.

7.

In view of aforesaid discussion, impugned charge sheet dated 18.06.2023 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 14.08.2023 and entire proceeding of Case no. 4157 of 2023 (State vs. Rashi) arising out of Case Crime no. 210 of 2023 under sections 420 IPC and 15(2) and 15(3) of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, PS- Bahjoi, District Sambhal are hereby quashed.

Operative part

8.

The instant application stands allowed, accordingly.

9.

However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the competent authorities to re-initiate the matter against the applicant, if so required, in strict consonance of the procedure as discussed above. September 24, 2025 Shaswat (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: The instant application stands allowed, accordingly

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 420; Indian Medical Council Act, 1956; National Medical Commission Act, 2019 — s. 60.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Allahabad High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. BNSS No. 36962 of 2025). ← Search more judgments