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 necessitating a mini-trial to assess evidence at the discharge stage.

JUDGMENT :

BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

1. The present application has been filed seeking setting aside the order dated 13.06.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Complaint Case No.9713 of 2008, Dr. A.K. Chaudhary Vs Dr. Gayatri Singh and another , under Section 23 of Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1994”), Police Station Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow, whereby the application for discharge preferred by the applicant was rejected and further the order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Court No.7, Lucknow in Criminal Revision No.517 of 2024, Dr. Gayatri Singh Vs. The State of U.P. and another, whereby the revision filed by the applicant was dismissed.

2. The facts, in nut shell, are that a complaint was filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 23 of the Act, 1994 at Police Station Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow on 18.11.2008, which was registered as Complaint Case No.9713 of 2008 before the Magistrate, whereupon the Magistrate took cognizance on 20.11.2008 and thereafter summon was issued against the applicant. The applicant surrendered and was enlarged on bail on 14.09.2010. The applicant moved an application for discharge, which was rejected on 13.06.2024. Being aggrieved by the said order, applicant preferred a revision, which too was dismissed by the revisional court vide order dated 18.11.2025. Hence, the instant application has been filed.

3. Sri Dhirendra Singh Panwar, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is an M.B.B.S. doctor and she has been a Registered Medical Practitioner since 1999 in the field of Obstetrics. Applicant is not the owner of Maa Chandrika Devi Maternity and Surgical Center and she was practicing there as Gynecologist at the time of alleged incident of search and seizure and the entire complaint is based on the hearsay evidence. He has further submitted that Dr. A.K. Chaudhary (opposite party no.2), the then Additional Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow is not the appropriate authority within the meaning of Section 17 of the Act, 1994 and he has no legal authority to file the present complaint. It is submitted that only single member of the Appropriate Authority cannot authorize any official to take action or decision as provided under Section 30(1) of the Act, 1994. The complaint is based on the proceedings of search and seizure conducted by the members of the search team on 13.11.2008, who were authorized by only single person of the party, as such the entire proceeding is vitiated.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further invited the attention of the Court towards the Government Notification No.3020/V-9-2007-6(74)-94- T.C. dated 30.11.1997, which has been issued in pursuance of Section 17 of the Act, 1994 and has submitted that as per clause (3) of the said Notification, the District Magistrate may nominate an executive Magistrate of the district as his/her nominee to assist him/her in monitoring the implementation of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, as deemed necessary.

5. In sum and substance, learned counsel for the applicant has taken two legal grounds; firstly, that complaint was not filed by the Appropriate Authority as provided under Section 28 of the Act, 1994, i.e. District Magistrate, but the same was filed by the Additional Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow, which is not sustainable and; secondly, while taking action under Section 30 of the Act, 1994, it