Cognizance of offences under the PCPNDT Act can only be taken on the basis of a complaint petition as envisaged under section 28 of the Act, and the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide and require caution in their exercise.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. SAHOO, J.

Yatra Naaryastu Poojyante Ramante Tatra Devataah which means where women are honoured, divinity blossoms there. Woman is the creator of the universe. A woman plays her adorable role as ‘Janani Bhagini Jaya’. Every man needs a mother, a sister and a wife. It is said that behind every successful man, there is a woman. She is graceful. She is compassionate. She bestows all her love for everybody in the family. She is the epitome of sacrifice and strength. She has occupied every significant place in the history of religion, art, literature, politics, sports and even in spiritual path and excelled in discharging her duty. In spite of such glorious contribution of womanhood to our society, in the 21st century when one fails to realize her worth and becomes instrumental in cases of female foeticide and ending the lives of the defenceless angles sent by God in the mother’s womb in a cruel manner, the concept of equal right and equality of status as envisaged in the Constitution appears unrealistic and it creates a dent on the unthinkable conduct of a civilised society.

In case of Voluntary Health Association of Punjab -Vrs.-Union of India reported in (2016) 10 Supreme Court Cases 265, Hon’ble Justice Dipak Misra speaking for the Bench observed as follows:-

“40. It needs no special emphasis that a female child is entitled to enjoy equal right that a male child is allowed to have. The constitutional identity of a female child cannot be mortgaged to any kind of social or other concept that has developed or is thought of. It does not allow any room for any kind of compromise. It only permits affirmative steps that are constitutionally postulated. Be it clearly stated that when rights are conferred by the Constitution, it has to be understood that such rights are recognised regard being had to their naturalness and universalism. No one, let it be repeated, no one, endows any right to a female child or, for that matter, to a woman. The question of any kind of condescension or patronization does not arise.

41. When a female foetus is destroyed through artificial means which is legally impermissible, the dignity of life of a woman to be born is extinguished. It corrodes the human values...”

In case of Voluntary Health Association of Punjab -Vrs.-Union of India reported in (2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1, Hon’ble Justice Dipak Misra observed as follows:-

“14. Female foeticide has its roots in the social thinking which is fundamentally based on certain erroneous notions, egocentric traditions, perverted perception of societal norms and obsession with ideas which are totally individualistic sans the collective good. All involved in female foeticide deliberately forget to realise that when the foetus of a girl child is destroyed, a woman of the future is crucified. To put it differently, the present generation invites the sufferings on its own and also sows the seeds of suffering for the future generation, as in the ultimate eventuate, the sex ratio gets affected and leads to manifold social problems. I may hasten to add that no awareness campaign can ever be complete unless there is real focus on the prowess of women and the need for women empowerment.

xx xx xx xx xx

16. It is not out of place to state here that the restricted and constricted thinking with regard to a girl child eventually leads to female foeticide. A foetus in the womb, because she is likely to be born as a girl child, is not allowed to see the mother earth.”

2. The petitioners Ramesh Ch. Naik, Surendra Kumar Sarangi, Aurobinda Mohapatra, Prasanta Kumar Sahoo, Ritanjali Mishra and Sanjay Chandra Rao who are all doctors have approached this Court in an application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the impugned order dated 30.09.2008 of the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nayagarh passed in G.R. Case No.430 of 2007 in taking cognizance of offences under sections 312, 315, 316, 109/34 of the Indian Penal Code, sections 23 and 25 of the Pre-concept