2016 Supreme(Bom) 2168
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
A.V. NIRGUDE, V.L. ACHLIYA, JJ.
Dr. Shri Balaji S/o Vasudeo Tambe - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 784 of 2016
Decided On : 09-08-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. R.B. Raghuwanshi, a/w Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. D.R. Kale, A.P.P.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the contents of the petitioner's book did not violate the provisions of the PCPNDT Act, and the complaint filed against the petitioner was a gross abuse of process of law.
Headnote:
PCPNDT Act - Quashing of complaint - Sections 28(1) of Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and Amendment Act of 2003 - [3-A, 22] - The court held that the contents of the book written by the petitioner did not violate the provisions of the PCPNDT Act. The court found that the allegations made in the complaint did not constitute any offence under the PCPNDT Act. The court also observed that the complaint was a gross abuse of process of law and that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be a waste of time and public money. The court allowed the petition and quashed the complaint.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a doctor by profession, sought the quashing of a complaint filed against him under Section 28(1) of the PCPNDT Act. The complaint alleged that the petitioner's book, 'Ayurvedic Garbha Sanskar', contained contents that violated the PCPNDT Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the contents of the petitioner's book did not violate the PCPNDT Act. The court observed that the complaint was a gross abuse of process of law and that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be a waste of time and public money.
Issues: The issues involved in the case were whether the contents of the petitioner's book violated the provisions of the PCPNDT Act and whether the complaint filed against the petitioner was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the contents of the petitioner's book did not violate the PCPNDT Act. The court also observed that the complaint was a gross abuse of process of law and that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be a waste of time and public money.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the complaint filed against the petitioner.
V.L. Achliya, J.
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for parties.
2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the petitioner herein seeks quashing of complaint bearing No. 150 of 2016 filed by the respondent under Section 28(1) of Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and Amendment Act of 2003, (henceforth referred to as the "PCPNDT Act") on the grounds set out in detail in the petition.
3. Before adverting to appreciate the submissions advanced, it is necessary to consider few facts leading to filing of petition. The petitioner claims to be Doctor by profession and holds the degree as "Ayurved Visharad". He claims to be author of more than twenty books and composed twenty five healing music albums. Petitioner claims that he has played an active and significant role in promotion of Ayurved. He also claims that he has initiated the Santulan OM mediation and Santulan Kriya Yoga Techniques and founder of Atmasantulan village which is known as world's renowned healing center. He is an author of book "Ayurvedic Garbha Sanskar", which was published in the year 2007, this subject matter of petition.
4. According to petitioner, Shri Ganesh S. Borhade, made a frivolous complaint to the office of respondent against the petitioner alleging therein that the petitioner is author of book "Ayurvedic Garbha Sanskar", of which certain contents amounts to an offence under Section 22 of PCPNDT Act. He urged the Civil Surgeon, Ahmednagar, the appropriate authority to take action against the petitioner.
5. On receipt of said complaint, the Medical Officer attached to Rural Hospital, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar issued show cause notice to the petitioner, calling upon him to submits his explanation within 5 days from the receipt of show cause notice. Since, the petitioner was out of country, notice was responded on his behalf by the person authorised by him. Petitioner claims that, the detail reply dealing with each of the objectionable contents referred in the notice was given by the petitioner. In support of the contents in the book referred in the notice, the petitioner has enclosed the copies of the reference books which are treated as authority in the field of Ayurveda. It is also pointed out that, that the contents on page 193 of the book published by the petitioner made in the notice, there are many publications which have made reference to 'Pusavan Vidhi' which includes Charakh Sanhita, Ayurvediya Mahakosh Part-II, Ashtang Sangraha and a book prescribed by Central Council of Indian Medicine for the syllabus of B.A.M.S. Course & M.S. (Gynaec). He has urged that, none of the contents referred in the show cause notice suggest any technology, facility, capability of undertaking determination of sex of foetus or sex selection. It was further pointed in the same book on page No. 195, Mrs. Malvika Tambe, Daughter in Law of the petitioner has shared her experience about giving birth to two daughters namely Tanushree & Tanishka.
6. After considering the explanation of the petitioner, the District Advisory Committee decided to seek guidance from the Dean, (Ayurved) Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik. Accordingly, the Civil Surgeon, Ahmednagar sent letter dated 20.01.2016 to Dean, (Ayurved) Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik seeking guidance on three points. Pursuant to request made vide letter dated 20th January, 2016 the committee of five Experts was constituted by Maharashtra Health University.
7. The expert committee after due deliberation forwarded its response through the Registrar of Health University. The Expert committee has specifically opined that, what has been mentioned in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, is the part of syllabus of B.A.M.S. and M.