Cognizance of an offence under the PNDT Act can only be taken based on a complaint made by the Appropriate Authority, and the court can inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of a police report.

JUDGMENT

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. - The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC. for quashing of case FIR No.05 dated 03.01.2016 registered under Sections 3-A, 5, 6 and 23 of PNDT Act, 1994 and Rule 9(4) & 9 (1) of PC PNDT Rules, 1996 and Sections 120-B IPC at Police Station City Khanna, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was running a hospital in the name and style of Jeevan Eye & Maternity Hospital at City Khanna, District Ludhiana along with Dr. Jagjivan Sood. The hospital was registered under the PC & PNDT Act, 1994 and the registration was being renewed periodically from time to time.

3. The District Appropriate Authority, Ambala-cum-Civil Surgeon received a secret information from some source that sex determination of pregnant ladies was being done by one Smt. Meenakshi (Asha Worker) in connivance with other touts of District Patiala by charging a sum of Rs.25,000/-. The DDA, Ambala asked one Dharamveer Sharma who was working as an Adolescent Health Worker at CHC, Chaurmastpur (Ambala) to contact Smt. Meenakshi for getting the sex of a foetus determined.

4. The prosecution case thereafter is that Smt. Meenakshi agreed and asked the said Dharamveer Sharma to come along with the pregnant lady on 03.01.2016. Smt. Sonia who was allegedly six months pregnant and was working against the post of a Ward Servant in Government Hospital, Ambala City was persuaded to be the decoy customer. The case thereafter is that on the same day i.e. 03.01.2016, the aforementioned persons along with certain others reached the petitioners Hospital, where it is alleged that the petitioner subjected the decoy customer to ultrasonography of sex determination without entering her name in the PC & PNDT Register and without filling the F-form. It is further alleged that the petitioner disclosed the sex of the foetus to Smt. Meenakshi who further conveyed the same to Dharamveer Sharma in the presence of the decoy customer. Subsequently, certain sums of money were recovered from Smt. Meenakshi and Kawaljeet Singh. The petitioner was arrested and her ultrasound machine was seized. The present FIR was registered on the same day and is attached with the petition as Annexure P-1. Ultimately, the petitioner was granted the concession of regular bail.

5. The petitioner has raised a number of disputed questions of fact regarding the search and seizure and how she had actually not conducted the ultrasound on the decoy customer.

6. While referring to various provisions of the PC & PNDT Act, 1994 the primary contention of the petitioner is that in terms of Section 28 of the PC & PNDT Act, no Court could take cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a complaint made by the Appropriate Authority concerned. It was contended that the said complaint had already been filed and therefore, the present FIR was not maintainable. It was argued that under the provisions of PC & PNDT Act, 1994 offences were to be investigated/inquired into by the Appropriate Authority concerned as per the mandate of Section 28 of PC & PNDT Act. A reference was made to Sections 17, 17-A and 30 read with Rules 11, 12, 18, 18-A of the PC & PNDT Rules, 1996 to contend that an offence under this Act was to be investigated into by the District Appropriate Authority as the PC & PNDT Act, 1994 was a Code in itself. References were also made to various judgments of this Court, wherein, it was held that an FIR under the provisions of the PC & PNDT Act, 1994 was not maintainable.

7. The learned State counsel has filed a reply to the petition.

The response of the State was to the effect that the registration of an FIR was maintainable and in the present case after conclusion of investigation, the challan had been prepared and was likely to be submitted to the trial Court. It may be relevant to mention here that pursuant to the filing of the written statement in November, 2016, the challan was submitted before the trial Court and the matt