ANISH KUMAR GUPTA
Brij Pal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
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 t
Rattiram v. State of M.P., (2012) 4 SCC 516
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya v. State of Karnataka, (2018) 5 SCC 732
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp1 SCC 335
Union of India vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma
Aslam Mohammad Merchant v. Competent Authority & Others
D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416
Dr. Manish C. Dave v. State of Gujarat reported in 2008 (1) GLH 475
Gangula Ashok v. State of A.P., (2000) 2 SCC 504
Jayant vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Jeewan Kumar Raut And Another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21
Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India
Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor
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....
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.