Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 3010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
District Magistrate West District Through Neha Bansal – Appellant
Versus
Josan Diagnotics Centre & Ors. – Respondents
Crl.M.C. 2462 of 2020
Decided On : 31-07-2023
Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC (CRL) with SI Jatin, PS Khyla & Dr. Aman Prasad, Nodal Officer, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Arup Sinnha and Ms. Arham Tanvir, Advocates, for the Respondent-1 and 2.
Mr. Gurvinder Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent-3 and 4.
The court emphasized the need to prioritize the underlying purpose of the PC&PNDT Act over technicalities when deciding applications seeking condonation of delay.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Criminal Procedure - PC&PNDT Act - Section 28 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a revision petition seeking to set aside an order dismissing a complaint under Section 28 of PC&PNDT Act. The petition was rejected due to a delay of 28 days in filing. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to the file passing through several departments and emphasized the seriousness of the allegations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while delay in filing a petition cannot be condoned in every case, in cases involving the larger interest of society, denying trial by dismissing an application for condonation of delay would result in a miscarriage of justice. The court emphasized the primary intent of the PC&PNDT Act to safeguard the rights of the unborn girl child and promote gender equality.
Issues: The main issue was whether the learned ASJ was justified in dismissing the revision petition solely on the ground of a 28-day delay in filing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied judicial precedents and emphasized the need to prioritize the underlying purpose of the PC&PNDT Act over technicalities when deciding applications seeking condonation of delay.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, condoned the delay, and remanded the case back to the court of learned ASJ to decide the revision petition on its merits.
JUDGMENT
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C') has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking setting aside of order dated 09.10.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-09, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi (`learned ASJ').
2. Background facts of the present case are that on 02.03.2016, based on an information that respondent no. 1 clinic, located in Rajouri Garden, Delhi, had been carrying out pre-natal tests related to sex determination of fetuses, an operation had been conducted by PNDT teams of Rohtak and Delhi. During the operation, it was discovered that respondent no. 2 i.e. one of the doctors at respondent no. 1 clinic, had disclosed the sex of the fetus. Furthermore, currency notes had also been seized from respondent no. 3 and 4, who had been acting as touts to the decoy patient. Thereafter, independent separate statements of the staff working at the clinic were recorded, confirming that respondent no. 1 to 4 had been engaged in the business of performing ultrasounds and disclosing the sex of the fetus to the patients. Based on these statements and evidence gathered from the said operation, both the PNDT teams had arrived at a conclusion that the respondents had contravened and committed offences under the PC&PNDT Act and the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, an FIR bearing no. 0132/2016, dated 02.03.2016, was registered at P.S. Khayla and the accused persons were arrested. After investigation, chargesheet was filed before the learned MM and the accused persons were summoned vide order dated 31.08.2017.
3. Thereafter, a complaint i.e. Crl. CC No.1505/2018 under Section 28 of PC&PNDT Act was also filed by the petitioner against the accused persons, however, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide order dated 15.04.2019 had dismissed the same. Against this dismissal, the petitioner had preferred a revision petition i.e. Crl.Rev.P. No. 264/2019, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 09.10.2019 by the learned ASJ on account of unexplained delay of 28 days in filing the same.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of learned ASJ, the present petition has been filed.
5. Learned ASC for the State, appearing on behalf of petitioner, submits that there was a total delay of 28 days in filing the revision petition, however, the petition has been rejected on the ground that there was no day-to-day explanation of the delay. It is argued that the allegations in the complaint are serious in nature, and the intent of the legislature in enactment of PC&PNDT Act was to deal with the offenders strictly. It is stated that it had taken sometime for the prosecution to file revision petition as the file had to pass through several departments and therefore, in the larger interest of the society and to ensure that the culprits are tried as per law as it is a case of revealing gender by a doctor and diagnostic centre, the present petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.
6. Learned counsels for the respondents, on the other hand, state that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned ASJ. It is also stated that the learned ASJ had rightly rejected and dismissed the plea of the petitioner on account of unexplained delay.
7. The arguments addressed by both sides have been heard and material on record has been perused.
8. The short issue before this Court is whether the learned ASJ was justified in dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner on the sole ground of delay of 28 days in filing the same.
9. At the outset, this Court takes note of the judgment dated 24.07.2023 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Raheem Shah & Anr. v. Govind Singh & Ors., SLP (C) No. 27901/2015, where the Court while emphasizing upon the need to adopt justice oriented approach while deciding applications seeking condonation of delay, had set aside the impugned order vide which the appeal
