Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA
Mahendra Singh, S/o. Shri Sultan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor – Respondent
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 199
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 t....
The court upheld the validity of a notification designating the Appropriate Authority as a Police Station, affirming that it aids in implementing the Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Technique....
The Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act permits complaints by authorized officers; complaints are valid if the appropriate authority delegates power according to statute without ne....
Jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance of offences under the Act is limited to complaints made by the appropriate authority as defined by the Act.
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.
Sex Determination Test – Continuing prosecution based on an illegal search will amount to abuse of process of law – If law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, same shall be....
Competence of the authority to file FIRs under the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act and applicability of previous judgments.
Cognizance of offences under the PC & PNDT Act requires a complaint from the appropriate authority, and failure to comply renders the proceedings void.
The main legal point established is that while the police can investigate offenses under the PNDT Act, court cognizance can only be based on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority, as per Section 2....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
