Dr. Tausif Ahmad Khan And Another State of U.P. and Another & Ors. v. Dr. Tausif Ahmad Khan) arising out of Case Crime No.146 of 2023 & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Outcome
Allowed
The instant application stands allowed, accordingly
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. In view of the aforesaid discussions, impugned charge-sheet dated 03.06.2023 as well as summoning/cognizance order dated 03.10.2023 including the entire proceedings of Case No. 596 of 2023 (State vs. Dr. Tausif Ahmad Khan and others) arising out of Case Crime No.146 of 2023, under…
Judgment
: Manoj Kumar Srivastava : G.A. Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Present application has been preferred to quash the impugned charge- sheet dated 03.06.2023 as well as summoning/cognizance order dated 03.10.2023 including the entire proceedings of Case No. 596 of 2023 (State vs. Dr. Tausif Ahmad Khan and others) arising out of Case Crime No.146 of 2023, under Section 420, 120-B I.P.C., Section 15(2), 15(3) of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Police Station-Nakhasa, District- Sambhal, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal at Chandausi.
While challenging the entire proceedings of the said case along with impugned chargesheet and cognizance/summoning order, learned counsel for applicant has submitted that Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 has already been repealed on 25.09.2020 and replaced by National Medical Commission Act, 2019 in spite of that, FIR was lodged on 19.04.2023 in the repealed Act wherein chargesheet was also submitted on dated 03.06.2023 in the repealed Act and more so, learned court concerned also took cognizance of offence under the repealed Act on dated 03.10.2023 and, once any specific Act has been repealed, the process for continuing the prosecution against the applicant become redundant.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application but did not dispute the legal grounds as raised by learned counsel for applicant.
After having the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and 2 NA528 No. 37905 of 2025 perusal of the material available on record, the Court finds that the legal arguments which have been raised by learned counsel for applicant, seem to be justified since Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 wherein cognizance of offence has taken, has already been repealed on 25.09.2020 and replaced by National Medical Commission Act, 2019 and as such, any action or cognizance taken under the repealed 1956 Act is indeed void. In sofar as attraction of Section 420, 120-B IPC is concerned, the same has been fastened upon the applicant in connection with the offence of said Special Act.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, impugned charge-sheet dated 03.06.2023 as well as summoning/cognizance order dated 03.10.2023 including the entire proceedings of Case No. 596 of 2023 (State vs. Dr. Tausif Ahmad Khan and others) arising out of Case Crime No.146 of 2023, under Section 420, 120-B I.P.C., Section 15(2), 15(3) of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Police Station-Nakhasa, District- Sambhal, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal at Chandausi, are hereby quashed.
Operative part
The instant application stands allowed, accordingly.
However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the competent authority to re-initiate the matter against applicant, if so required, in strict consonance of the procedure as discussed above. September 24, 2025 Vivek Kr. (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) VIVEK KUMAR 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; Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 — ss. 15(2), 15(3); National Medical Commission Act, 2019.
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.