HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Ganesh Patel & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) Nos. 3240/2016 and 2345/2016
Decided On : 18-10-2022
P.C.P.N.D.T. Act - Quashing of FIRs - Sections 4, 5, 6, 23, 25, 29 PCPNDT Act, 1994: Rule 9 & 10 PCPNDT Rules, 1996 - [Summary of Acts and Sections discussed in the judgment]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash FIRs filed against them under the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act and IPC sections. The court analyzed the competence of the authority to file the FIRs and the applicability of the judgment in Dr. Mohammad Imtiyaz case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the authority was not competent to file the FIRs directly and that the offenses alleged were not made out. It applied the judgment in Dr. Mohammad Imtiyaz case and allowed the petitions, quashing the FIRs.
Issues: Competence of authority to file FIRs, applicability of previous judgment, and validity of offenses alleged.
Ratio Decidendi: The authority was not competent to file the FIRs directly, and the offenses alleged were not made out. The judgment in Dr. Mohammad Imtiyaz case was applicable and led to the quashing of the FIRs.
Final Decision: The petitions were allowed, and the FIRs were quashed. The final report filed by the competent authority would be treated as a complaint, and the respondents were free to proceed in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The petitioners have preferred these petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. claiming the following reliefs:
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3240/2016
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed on behalf of the petitioner that this criminal misc. petition may kindly be allowed, FIR No. 19/2016, P.S. PBI, Medical & Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur registered qua the petitioner for the offence under Sections 4, 5, 6, 23, 25, 29 PCPNDT Act, 1994: Rule 9 & 10 PCPNDT Rules, 1996 and Section 315/511 IPC, as well as proceedings ensued therein till date, may kindly be quashed and set aside, so also the charge-sheet, if filed.
Any other appropriate order or direction which may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of the petitioner. "
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2345/2016
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed on behalf of the petitioner that this criminal misc. petition may kindly be allowed, FIR No. 10/2016, P.S. PBI, Medical & Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur registered qua the petitioner for the offence under Drugs and Magic Remedies (objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954; Section 315, 120-B IPC and Sections 4, 5, 6, 23, 25, 29 PCPNDT Act, 1994: Rule 9 (2), (3), (4), (5) (6), (7) and (8) of the Rules of 1996 thereunder, as well as proceedings ensued therein till date may kindly be quashed and set aside, so also charge sheet, if filed.
Any other appropriate order or direction which may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of the petitioner. "
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned F.I. Rs. ought to be quashed and set aside; as a perusal of the provision of law contained in Sections 27 & 28 of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act and Rule 18A of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Rules, would reveal that the respondent No. 2 was not competent to file the impugned First Information Reports.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Dr. Mohammad Imtiyaz v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet) No. 5502/2022, decided on 22.09.2022), squarely covers the controversy herein; in the said case, the Hon'ble Court had observed that under the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act, though a complaint made by the competent authority will survive, but the FIR lodged by the said authority would be in violation of the aforementioned provisions of law contained in the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act and Rules, and therefore shall not survive. And that a perusal of the impugned First Information Reports would reveal that the offences under the Sections therein are also prime facie, not made out against the petitioners; being Section 315/511 I.P.C. in FIR No. 19/2016, and Sections 315 & 120-B I.P.C. in FIR No. 10/2016, respectively.
For the sake of brevity, the said judgment rendered in Dr. Mohammad Imtiyaz (supra) is reproduced hereunder:-
"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 Prenatal 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
Competence of the authority to file FIRs under the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act and applicability of previous judgments.
The court emphasized the importance of jurisdiction and the presence of essential ingredients in alleged offenses, as per the relevant legal provisions.
The court emphasized the bar on police interference and the requirement for complaints to be filed by appropriate authorities under the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the police have the authority to investigate cognizable offences under the Pre Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994.
Cognizance of an offence under the PNDT Act can only be taken based on a complaint made by the Appropriate Authority, and the court can inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case ar....
The court ruled that only the Appropriate Authority or authorized officers can investigate and file complaints under the PC&PNDT Act, prohibiting police involvement in such cases.
Cognizance of offences under the P.N.D.T. Act requires complaints filed by appropriate authorities; failure to comply renders proceedings invalid, constituting an abuse of process.
Offences under PNDT Act have been classified as cognizable offences without there being any exclusion clause ruling out police investigation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.