Cognizance of offences under the P.N.D.T. Act requires complaints filed by appropriate authorities; failure to comply renders proceedings invalid, constituting an abuse of process.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.634 of 2019 on the file of the learned XV Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘I.P.C.’) and Section 23 of the Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2- Police on receipt of credible information that a prenatal sex determine test was conducting illegally on pregnant ladies at Prathyusha Scanning Center, by violating the Government rules and regulations, he along with his staff conducted Decoy operation by sending one woman constable into the scanning center. The petitioner conducted prenatal sex determine test to the said woman constable and issued report to her by disclosing the gender of the baby. Later, the said woman constable came outside and informed the same to the superior officers. On receipt of the said information, the superiors rushed to the spot and found the petitioner conducting sex determination test to pregnant ladies without registered medical practice certificate. On enquiry, the petitioner revealed that since three years he was conducting sex determination test to pregnant ladies. Thereafter, respondent No.2 registered a case in Crime No.41 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and Section 23 of the Act and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet, vide C.C.No.634 of 2019, before the learned XV Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ibrahimpatnam.

3. Heard Sri Srinivas Podicheti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case as he was no way concerned with the offences as alleged by respondent No.2. He further submitted that respondent No.2 is not empowered under the law to register a crime against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel further submitted that section 28 of the Act prohibits a Court from taking cognizance of any offence except on a complaint made by an appropriate authority or an authorized officer. He further submitted that a person other than appropriate authority or authorized officer cannot file a complaint directly to the Court in this behalf or he/she has to give 15 days’ notice. Therefore, the allegations against the petitioner do not constitute the offence, as such, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Sai Kiran Hospital and Another vs. State of Telangana and Another , 2020 SCC OnLine TS 3467, wherein in paragraph No.8, it is held as follows:

“8. In the instant case also, it is nowhere stated in the private complaint that the 2^nd respondent is an appropriate authority and that he was authorized by the ‘appropriate authority’ to file the said complaint and to prosecute the petitioners. Keeping in mind the ambit and scope of Section 28 of the P.N.D.T. Act and following the principles of law laid down in Dr. Mallannagouda v. the State of Karnataka (supra), this Court is of the considered view that further proceedings against the petitioners in both the criminal petitions would amount to an abuse of process of law.”

6. On the ot