Cognizance of offences under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Act can only be taken on a complaint filed by appropriate authorities, not via FIRs, as per Sections 27 and 28 of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. Since both the aforementioned criminal misc. petitions are arising out of same incident, therefore, with the consent of the parties, the petitions were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4985/2019:

2. The petitioner, who is Manager of Indu Ultrasound Scan Centre, Singhana, Jhunjhunu, has challenged FIR No. 2/2014 registered at Police Station PBI, Jaipur whereas in S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1422/2015, petitioner Dr. Yogesh Kumar, who is a doctor by profession, has assailed the proceedings initiated on the basis of FIR No. 2/2014 registered at Police Station PBI, Jaipur including complaint No. 7/2014 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 2(E), 4(3), 5(2), 6, 19(1), 19(2) of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 1994’) and Rule 3(3)(1),(3), 4(1)(i)(ii), 9(1)(4)(6)(7)(8), 11, 17(1)(2), 18 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Technique (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1996') read with Section 23 of the Act of 1994 and Section 31 of the Rajasthan Medical Act, 1952 as also Sections 168, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as 'IPC') pending before the Court of Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (PCPNDT Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’).

3. It is stated that FIR No. 2/2014 was registered at Police Station PBI, Jaipur with the allegation that the petitioner in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4985/2019 was indulged in commission of offence of sex determination by using pre-natal diagnostic techniques and has, thereby, committed offences punishable under Sections 4(3), 5(2), 6 of the Act of 1994 and Rules 9(1), (4), (6), (7), (8), 17(1)(2), 18 of the Rules of 1996 read with Section 23 of the Act of 1994.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Act of 1994 is a special statute and a self contained code. In case any offence is alleged to have been committed in violation of the provisions of the Act of 1994 or the Rules of 1996, then no FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’) can be lodged and instead thereof, a criminal complaint can be filed under Section 28 of the Act of 1994 by the Appropriate Authority appointed under the Act of 1994. In the instant case, instead of filing criminal complaint, FIR has been lodged by the Deputy Director (RCH) and Incharge of PCPNDT Cell, Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, which, in view of specific provisions of the Act of 1994, could not have been lodged by the police authorities. Therefore, lodging of FIR and the proceedings initiated thereunder are totally without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed and set aside by this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, relied upon the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Dr. Mohammad Imtiyaz Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another (S.B. Criminal (Pet.) No. 5502/2022 decided on 22.09.2022), which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 28.03.2025 passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 103/2023, whereby special leave petition filed by the State against the aforesaid decision has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also