JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent – State.

2. By way of this application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, ‘Cr.PC’), the applicant has, inter-alia, prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana at Visnagar.

3. As per the facts of the prosecution, an FIR bearing CR No.II-406 of 2012 was registered with Visnagar Police Station, District Mehsana by Pravinaben being a Sub Divisional Magistrate, Visnagar as de-facto complainant on 27.11.2012 for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 22, 23, 25 and 29 of the Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (for short, ‘PC&PNDT’ Act).

3.1 It was alleged in the FIR that on the basis of the information received by the District Collector, sting operation was carried out and search at the place of the accused and after recording statements of some witnesses, complaint was filed. It was the allegation in the complaint that illegally, the applicant was conducting the sex determination of foetus, by examining through sonography.

3.2 The applicant was arrested and released on regular bail at that time. Further, the charge-sheet came to be filed in which Sections 313, 315 and Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘I.P.C’) were also added.

4. The application under Section 227 of the Cr.PC was moved to discharge the applicant from the offence under Sections 313 and 315 of the I.P.C.

5. Learned Advocate Mr. Harshadkumar Panchal for the applicant referring to the provision of Section 28 of PC&PNDT Act submitted that the invocation of section 313 and 315 along with Section 114 of IPC in the charge-sheet would be contrary to the provision of PC&PNDT Act. Advocate Mr. Panchal submitted that as provided under Section 28 of the PC&PNDT Act, there could be no FIR in the police station and that it is only the Court which can take cognizance of the offence under the PC&PNDT Act on the complaint made by the appropriate authority concerned or any officer authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government or the appropriate authority. Hence, advocate Mr. Panchal submitted that the challenge had been given to the complaint filed under Section 154 of the Cr.PC by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Visnagar.

5.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Panchal stated that the very registration of the FIR against the applicant should be considered to be bad in law and therefore, the petitioner had preferred quashing petition being Cr.MA No.1918 of 2013 before this High Court where initially, the stay was granted and thereafter along with other petitions, the petition preferred by the revisionist also came to be dismissed by this Court. Thereafter, the revisionist had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

5.2 Learned Advocate Mr. Panchal thus submitted that in view of the dismissal of the quashing petition, the discharge application Exh.58 was moved with a limited purpose of discharging the applicant for the offence under Sections 313, 315 and 114 of the IPC. Advocate Mr. Panchal submitted that the application of the petitioner came to be rejected on 11.07.2024 by the Additional Sessions Court and the revisionist thus being aggrieved has come before this Court in the revision jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.PC.

5.3 Learned Advocate Mr. Panchal for the revisionist submitted that the impugned order is ex-facie illegal, unjust and against the provision of the statues. The order is patently erroneous, palpably wrong and demonstrably illegal. The learned trial Court Judge has committed serious error while appreciating the facts of the case, which had led to miscarriage of justice.

5.3.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Panchal raised apprehension that pending criminal proceeding, the registration of the hospital/centre would be cancell