Advocates:
['Ravi Prakash Mishra', '', 'SACHIN KUMAR', 'SURABHI', 'PRABHU DAYAL AGRAWAL']

1

Cr.M.P.

No. 3655 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 3655 of 2019

Dr. Kumari Seema @ Dr. Seema Modi @ Dr. Seema, aged about 40

years, W/o Dr. Manoj Kumar, Resident of Dhanvantari Ultrasound and

E.N.T. Care Centre, Old Doctor's Gali, Jhumaritilaiya, P.O. & P.S.

Jhumaritilaiya, District- Koderma, State- Jharkhand … Petitioner

-Versus-

1.

The State of Jharkhand

2.

Appropriate Authority/Medical Officer, Hospital through authorized

representative namely Santosh Singh, Executive Magistrate, Koderma,

S/o Raj Vansh Singh, aged about 40 years, resident of at present Raza

Talab, officer Colony, P.O., P.S., Town and District- Koderma, State-

Jharkhand

… Opposite Parties

-----

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, Advocate

Ms. Surabhi, Advocate

For the Opposite Party-State

: Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, S.P.P.

-----

09/11.10.2022.

Heard Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned Special Public Prosecutor

for the State.

2.

This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal

proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No.943/2019 including the

order dated 10.07.2019 whereby the summons have been directed to be

issued to the accused persons including the petitioner, pending in the court

of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.

3.

The complaint petition has been filed under Section 23/25 of the

Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex

Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act, 1994”)

alleging therein that Santosh Kumar Singh, Executive Magistrate,

2

Cr.M.P.

No. 3655 of 2019

Koderma was given the responsibility of the appropriate authority for

the period from 27.05.2019 to 28.05.2019. For conducting decoy

operation, from the State level Rafat Farzana, Coordinator, PCPNDT,

Shree Rajan Chaudhary, Social Worker, Rajasthan, Shree Arshad Hussain,

Social Worker were called and the planning was done to conduct

decoy operation on 27.05.2019. According to the complaint petition

after briefing about the procedure to be followed, the providing money for

the purpose of payment as fee for ultrasonography, the decoy agents were

sent to Dhanvantari Ultrasound and the petitioner was arrested on the

ground that she has conducted sex determination test and conveyed about

female foetus to the tout, who in turn conveyed it to the pregnant lady

(decoy agent).

4.

Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioner submits that in light of Section 28 of the Act, 1994, appropriate

authority is required to file the case and the same person is also authorized

to enquire into the matter, which is in terms of Sub-section (4) of Section 17

of the Act, 1994. According to him, even search and seizure power is with

the appropriate authority in light of section 30 of the Act, 1994. He further

advances his argument by way of submitting that in a special statute, there

is requirement to follow certain thing which is required to be done in light of

special statute, which has not been done in the case in hand. To buttress

his argument, he relied upon the Full Bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Hukam Chand Shyamlal v. Union of India and Ors.;

AIR 1976 SC 789 and he particularly relied on paragraph no.18 of the said

judgment. He further elaborates his argument by way of submitting that

for the same offence one FIR is lodged and trial has proceeded however the

3

Cr.M.P.

No. 3655 of 2019

complaint is filed only to rectify the first case and the requirement of

statute has not been followed. He submits that this aspect of the matter

has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of

Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanj;