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.

ORDER

In S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6746/2022 :-

1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the controversy involved in the present matter is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Dr. Mohammad Imtiyaz Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.5502/2022), decided on 22.09.2022, relevant portion reads as under :-

"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 State, District and Sub-district notified under the Act, inter-alia, shall observe the following conduct for processing of complaint and investigation, namely :-

(i) ... xxx ...

to

(iii) ... xxx...

(iv) as far as possible, not involve police for investigating cases under the Act as the cases under the Act are tried as complaint cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).’

10. Sections 27 & 28 of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act clearly suggest that the scheme of the Act bars interference of other authorities including the police. Section 28 clearly prohibits a Court from taking cognizance of any offence under the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act except pursuant to a complaint filed by an appropriate authority or authorised officer in this behalf. It is to be noted that a person other than appropriate authority or authorised officer cannot file a complaint directly to the Court - he has to give 15 days notice.

11. Rule 18A(3)(iv) of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Rules in express terms postulates that involvement of police shall be minimum. When the very involvement is discouraged under the Act and the Rules, registration of F.I.R., investigation and arrest by the police is out of question.

12. Moving on to the next question, whether provisions of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are attracted ? Entire story as narrated in the F.I.R., revolves around determination of sex and taking Rs. 50,000/- as fee for such act by the accused person. There is not even a whisper about cheating. Even the informer, at whose information, decoy or trap was plotted, did not allege cheating or inducement - the information was only about sex determination. During the course of trap also, the petitioner and other coaccused have agreed to determine the sex of the fetus. Hence, foundational or jurisdictional fact quintesse