Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Dr. Brij Pal Singh – Applicant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another - Opposite Parties
Application U/S 482 No. 6753 Of 2019
Decided On : 30-09-2024
(A) Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 - Sections 28, 30 - Cognizance of offences - No court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a complaint made by the Appropriate Authority or authorized officer - FIR lodged by Tehsildar is impermissible as he is not the Appropriate Authority - Proceedings quashed. (Paras 87, 88)
(B) Investigation - Police cannot investigate offences under the PC&PNDT Act - Only Appropriate Authority or authorized officer can investigate and file complaints. (Paras 76, 80)
The legal document emphasizes that under the provisions of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, the investigation and filing of complaints are restricted to the Appropriate Authority or officers authorized by it. The Act explicitly bars police investigation and involvement in such cases, establishing a regulatory framework where only designated authorities can conduct investigations, seize records, and file complaints or initiate proceedings (!) (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the Act mandates that cognizance of offences can only be taken by courts upon a complaint made by the Appropriate Authority or an officer authorized by it. The registration of FIRs by police, based on information or investigation, is generally not permissible unless it is in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the Act and the Rules, which emphasize that investigations should primarily be carried out by the Appropriate Authority (!) (!) (!) .
The scheme and objectives of the Act are aimed at preventing female foeticide by regulating the use of pre-natal diagnostic techniques, prohibiting sex determination, and ensuring that investigations are conducted by specialized authorities with the requisite knowledge and expertise. The Act also prescribes specific procedures for search, seizure, and investigation, which involve the Appropriate Authority and prohibit police involvement unless absolutely necessary and authorized (!) (!) (!) .
In addition, the document highlights that any investigation or proceedings initiated by unauthorized persons, such as police officers or individuals not authorized under the Act, are illegal and liable to be quashed. The law clearly states that only the Appropriate Authority or officers authorized by it can investigate offences and file complaints, ensuring that the enforcement remains within a specialized and regulated framework (!) (!) (!) .
Finally, the document underscores that the powers of investigation, search, seizure, and filing of complaints are governed by the Act and its Rules, which form a complete code in themselves. These provisions are designed to prevent misuse, ensure proper procedural compliance, and safeguard the rights of individuals involved. The law also emphasizes that judicial intervention to quash proceedings should only occur when there is a clear violation of statutory procedures or lack of authority, and not merely on technical or procedural grounds (!) (!) (!) .
In summary, the legal framework strictly limits investigation and prosecution under the PC & PNDT Act to designated authorities, prohibits police investigation unless explicitly authorized, and mandates that courts can only take cognizance of offences upon a complaint made by the authorized authorities, thereby maintaining the integrity and purpose of the Act.
JUDGMENT :
(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)
1. Heard Sri S.M.A. Abdy, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 02.01.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 60 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 0628 of 2017 u/S 315, 511 I.P.C. and under Sections 4/5(2)6(a)/23/25 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred as, 'the PC&PNDT Act'), P.S.- Kotwali Shahar, District- Bulandshahar, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar.
BRIEF FACTS
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.3.2017, the Tehsildar Khurja, District- Bulandshahar submitted a written report to the police station Kotwali Nagar stating therein that the District Magistrate-Bulandshahar has received information from the secret informer that in Sobha Ram Hospital, the sex identification of the foetus of the pregnant women is being done with the object to prevent the female child being born alive and if any pregnant women is sent as decoy customer then the doctors of the said hospital and the persons associated with the doctor can be caught red handed. On such secret information, the District Appropriate Authority (PC&PNDT), District-Bulandshahar authorised the Tehsildar Khurja to conduct the required proceedings. For the aforesaid purpose, a Special Action Team was constituted by nominating Subhash Singh, Sub-Inspector, P.S.-Kotwali Nagar, District-Bulandshahar along with the Tehsildar.
4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the said Tehsildar called the said Sub-Inspector along with two constables and one lady constable in plain clothes and the team met at the Kaala aam crossing and in the process the decoy customer, the lady constable Preeti along with her decoy husband, Sanjay Kaushik also came there and were informed by the Tehsildar about the action to be taken. Then the decoy customer, lady constable Preeti consented therefor and then the Tehsildar handed over Rs. 11,000/- (5 x Rs. 2000/- Notes and 2x Rs. 500/- Notes) to the said decoy customer and as per the planning all of them went towards the Sobha Ram Hospital and the decoy customer Preeti and her decoy husband Sanjay were sent to Sobha Ram Hospital for the sex identification of the foetus. After sometime, Sanjay Kaushik came back and told that near the gate of the hospital two persons were standing and when he disclosed the cause of their arrival, those persons informed him that they are known to the doctor and they will get the sex identification of the foetus done through the doctor. Both the aforesaid persons disclosed their name as Kallan and Sanjeev. He further said that these persons disclosed the expense to be incurred in such examination by the doctor and then both of them went to talk to the doctor and a deal for Rs. 9,000/- was fixed as charge for such examination. He further told that out of Rs. 11,000/- given to said Kallan, Rs. 2,000/- were returned and Rs. 9,000/- was given to decoy customer, constable Preeti, who has gone inside for examination by the doctor and the doctor is doing the sex identification of the foetus. Saying so, the said Sanjay Kaushik returned the note of Rs. 2,000/-. On such intimation, the Tehsildar had reason to believe that doctors of Sobha Ram Hospital are conducting the sex identification of foetus by taking the customer through their brokers.
5. On such information, Tehsildar along with his team came near the gate of the hospital and waited for the return of the decoy customer, Preeti who came from the hospital after sometime and informed that sex identification of the foetus in her womb has been done by the doctor and the doctor has told her that the foetus is a girl child. She further stated that the doctor has not entered her name or address in any of the register nor any receipt was give
The court ruled that only the Appropriate Authority or authorized officers can investigate and file complaints under the PC&PNDT Act, prohibiting police involvement in such cases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the police have the authority to investigate cognizable offences under the Pre Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994.
Competence of the authority to file FIRs under the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act and applicability of previous judgments.
(1) Sex determination test – Summoning order – It is mandatory for person conducting Ultrasonography on a pregnant woman to keep complete record relating to Ultrasonography in clinic – Determination ....
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 ar....
Cognizance of offences under the PC & PNDT Act requires a complaint from the appropriate authority, and failure to comply renders the proceedings void.
(1) Offence under Prevention of Corruption Act is a substantive offence.(2) Merely because offence of conspiracy may be involved, investigation into substantive offence which is cognizable is not req....
sub-section (2) of section 55 is also very relevant to be mentioned here, it says that for the purposes of section 156 of Cr P.C, the area in regard to which an Inspector of Excise or Sub-Inspector o....
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
