The court emphasized the importance of jurisdiction and the presence of essential ingredients in alleged offenses, as per the relevant legal provisions.

ORDER :

1. The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner with the following prayers:

“It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the petition may kindly be allowed:

(a) the captioned FIR and the entire proceedings in furtherance thereto qua the petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(b) any other appropriate/consequential orders or directions which may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be passed.”

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment dated 18.10.2022 passed by this Court in SBCRLMP No. 3240/2016 titled as Dr. Ganesh Patel vs. State of Rajasthan and Another and submits that the controversy involved in the instant petition is squarely covered with the aforesaid judgment. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:

“5. This Court, looking into the factual matrix of the present case, finds that the First Information Reports impugned herein were filed by the respondent no. 2 i.e. the Sub-Inspector, Authorized Officer under the P.C.P.N.D.T Act; although he is a competent authority to file a complaint under the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act i.e. Sections 27 and 28 thereof read with Rule 18A of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Rules, however, the said authority is barred from directly filing First Information Reports against a person accused under the offences in the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act.

6. This Court observes that Section 315/511 and Sections 315 & 120-B, of the I.P.C. are interlinked with the offences under the Act of 1994 and the Rules of 1996, and a perusal of the impugned First Information Reports would reveal that the ingredients of the offences alleged under the said Sections, are absent.

7. This Court, after looking into the factual matrix of the present case, and as a result of the above discussion, finds that the judgment rendered in Dr. Mohammad Imtiyaz (supra) is applicable in the present case, and thus, the present petitions deserve to be allowed, in terms of the said judgment.

8. Consequently, keeping into consideration the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 and the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Dr. Mohammad Imtiyaz (supra), the present petitions are allowed. Accordingly, FIR Nos. 19/2016 and 10/2016, registered at Police Station, PBI, Medical &Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur; for the offences under Sections 4, 5, 6, 23, 25 and 29 of P.C.P.N.D.T. Act, 1994 and Rules 9 and 10 of the P.C.P.N.D.T Rules, 1996 and Section 315/511 IPC (in FIR No. 19/2016) and for the offences under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954, and Sections 315, 120-B IPC, Sections 4, 5, 6, 23, 25, 29 of PCPNDT Act, 1994 and Rules 9 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) & (8) of the Rules of1996 (In FIR No. 10/2016) qua the present petitioners are hereby quashed and set aside. However, it is made clear that the final report filed by the competent authority shall be treated as complaint, and the respondents shall be free to proceed strictly in accordance with law. It is further made clear that the petitioners shall be free to take all their legal issues at the appropriate stage, before the competent court.”

3. A bare look at the FIR reveals that the respondent No. 2- Police Inspector, Officer-In-Charge and Head Constable of Police Station P.B.I. lodged a complaint against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420 and 120B of IPC and under Section 3, 4, 5, 6, 23 and 25 of the Pre-Conceptional and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PCPNDT Act 1994’) and Rules 9 and 10 of the Pre-Conceptional and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PCPNDT Rules, 1996’).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 2, although, is a competent authority to file