The central legal point established in the judgment is that offences under the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act are non-cognizable and can only be taken cognizance of by a complaint made by the appropriate authority or an authorized officer, and police involvement in investigating cases under the Act is discouraged.

ORDER :

1. The instant petition has been preferred invoking this Court’s power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) impugning the F.I.R. No.01/2022, registered at Police Station P.B.I., District Jaipur against the petitioner seeking his prosecution for offences under the provisions of Sections 420 & 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4, 5, 6, 18, 23 & 25 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act”) and Rule 4 of Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the P.C.P.N.D.T. Rules”).

2. While maintaining that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and a concocted story has been portrayed, Mr. Kumbhat, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent No. 2 has no jurisdiction to register an F.I.R. for offences under the provisions of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act as the offences under Sections 4, 5, 6, 18, 23 & 25 of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act are non-cognizable.

3. He further argued that even if the contents of the FIR are believed to be true, offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.

4. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner informed that after registration of the impugned F.I.R., a complaint has also been instituted by Manohar Lal Meena, Police Inspector, Officer-in-charge, Police Station P.C.P.N.D.T. Bureau of Investigation, Medical & Health Services, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the appropriate authority”) and this FIR is hit by Article 20 of the Constitution and Section 300 of the Code.

5. Ms. Gehlot, learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, argued that since the petitioner has committed forgery, he is liable to be punished under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. She emphasised that even if the offence under the provisions of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act are non-cognizable, the Investigating Officer could register the F.I.R. because, it is a case of multiple offences under two enactments arising out of one incident.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. According to this Court, the allegation that the petitioner was involved in sex determination, definitely gives rise to an offence under the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act, but the moot question is whether such offence can be taken cognizance of by the Police or whether the Police can directly register an F.I.R.

8. Answer to the above question lies in Sections 27 and 28 of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act, which are reproduced here infra :-

“27. Offence to be cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable. -Every offence under this Act shall be cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable.

28. Cognizance of offences.

1. No court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a complaint made by—

(a) the Appropriate Authority concerned, or any officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be, or the Appropriate Authority; or

(b) a person who has given notice of not less than fifteen days in the manner prescribed, to the Appropriate Authority, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint to the court.

Explanation.—For the purpose of this clause, “person” includes a social organisation.

2. No court other than that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act.

3. Where a complaint has been made under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the court may, on demand by such person, direct the Appropriate Authority to make available copies of the relevant records in its possession to such person.”

9. Rule 18A of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Rules also has an important bearing on the question involved, hence, relevant part thereof is being extracted herein below :-

“18A. Code of Conduct to be observed by Appropriate Authority.

(1) … xxx …

(2) … xxx …

(3) All the Appropriate Authorities including the Stat