Manoj Krishan Ahuja vs State of NCT of Delhi

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 673

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
Manoj Krishan Ahuja - Petitioner
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi and Another - Respondents
Crl. M.C. No. 1352 of 2023 & Crl. M.A. No. 5184 of 2023
Decided On : 24-04-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Govardhan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Jyotsna Bhuchar and Mr. Anmol Singh, Mr. Manoj Pant, APP with SI Bharat Singh.

Headnote:(A) Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 - Section 28 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Cognizance of offences under PC&PNDT Act can only be taken on complaint by Appropriate Authority or authorized persons, not on a police chargesheet. High Court set aside the cognizance due to absence of complaint as mandated, upholding the need for adherence to statutory procedures. (Paras 1, 25, 32, 107)

(B) Police Investigation - Although police may assist in investigation, the initiation must comply with the procedures set in PC&PNDT Act. Procedural lapses by Appropriate Authority invalidated prior investigation and cognizance taken. (Paras 40, 50, 60)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought quashing of an FIR for alleged illegal sex determination tests at a hospital, asserting the police lacked jurisdiction to investigate under the PC&PNDT Act since proper complaint procedures were not followed.

Findings of Court:
The cognizance was set aside as it did not align with the procedural requirements stipulated in Section 28 of the PC&PNDT Act despite the relevance and significance of the investigations carried out.

Issues: Whether the learned Trial Court could take cognizance based on a chargesheet rather than a valid complaint by the Appropriate Authority under Section 28.

Ratio Decidendi: Cognizance of offences under the PC&PNDT Act is permissible only with a valid complaint from the Appropriate Authority or authorized personnel, emphasizing the quashing of legal proceedings initiated outside this requirement.

Result: Petition allowed; FIR quashed.

Table of Content
1. quashing of fir process (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. arguments against fir and investigation validity (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. historical and legislative background of pc&pndt act (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
4. interpretation of investigation procedures under pc&pndt act (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 44 , 49 , 50 , 52 , 56 , 57)
5. court's final directions and conclusions (Para 102 , 103 , 104 , 107 , 110 , 112)

JUDGMENT :

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

Index to the Judgment
FACTUAL BACKGROUND	3
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS	6
THE HISTORIC BACKDROP	9
ISSUES BEFORE THIS COURT	12
I. Cognizance of Offences under Section 28	12
II. Is Police Investigation permissible under PC&PNDT Act?	17
III. Quashing of FIR in a case under PC&PNDT Act	23
OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT APROPOS THE NEED TO CLARIFY CERTAIN PROVISIONS AND PROCEDURES UNDER THE ACT	29
I. Joint Endeavour of Judiciary, Legislature and Executive to achieve Object of the Act	30
II. Impact Assessment of Laws, Practical Difficulties and Consequent Development of Jurisprudence by the Courts	34
III. Judicial, Institutional and Constitutional Restraint by the Courts v. Pointing out the Grey Areas in an Act for the Legislature to cure for achieving Substantive Justice	36
IV. Backdrop of Reasons Necessitating Issuance of Guidelines Apropos the Act : Quest for Substantive Justice	40
a. Need for Safe Womb for Female Foetus : Sex-Determination Tests directly related to Sex-Selective Abortions	41
CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS	45

1. The petitioner, by way of instant petition filed under Section 4 82 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , 1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C’), seeks quashing of FIR bearing no. 375/2018, registered at Police Station Sunlight Colony, New Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 3A/4/5/6/23/29 of the Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter ‘PC&PNDT Act’) and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The case set out by the prosecution, in brief, is that the District Appropriate Authority, PC&PNDT, Rohtak had received an information regarding illegal sex determination of foetus being carried out at Jeewan Hospital, New Delhi by some of the doctors and the said information had been forwarded to Dr. Nitin, State Program Officer, PC&PNDT (DFW), who had accordingly informed the concerned authorities. Upon receipt of such information, the concerned authority in Delhi had constituted a joint raiding team comprising District Inspection Monitoring Committee (DIMC) Team, South East District, New Delhi and PC&PNDT Team, Rohtak, headed by SDM, Defence Colony, South East Delhi.

3. For carrying out the raid, two decoy patients i.e. Ms. Monika and Dr. Vijay Kumar had been sent to Delhi from Rohtak to meet Ms. ‘X’, who was involved in a racket of carrying out illegal sex determination, as per the information so received. Ms. Monika had been given Rs. 30,000/- in cash by the joint raiding team. Upon reaching Jeewan Hospital Gate No. 2, the decoy patients had met Ms. ‘X’ who had instructed Mr. Vijay to get himself registered at the reception in some other name i.e. Rahul on the pretext of meeting the doctor for abdominal pain. It is alleged that Mr. Vijay (Rahul) had paid Rs. 850/- for the Ultrasound Sonography Test (‘USG’) and had handed over the OPD card and receipt of Rs. 850/- to Ms. ‘X’, who had then taken Ms. Monika, instead of Mr. Vijay (Rahul), for the USG Test to Dr. Manoj Krishan Ahuja i.e. the present petitioner. The petitioner had allegedly conducted the test upon Ms. Monika and had given the report to Ms. ‘X’ who had further disclosed to Ms. Monika that the sex of the foetus was female. Thereafter, upon recei