THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15820 of 2024

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.643 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120b, 312 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 23 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-

Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on April 10, 2023, at 6:00 PM, the administrator of Manda Sakhi Center in Nalgali, lodged a complaint at Nalgonda I Town Police Station stating that Kati Vijayendar Reddy Hospital in Sriramnagar Colony, Nalgonda, was involved in illegal sex selection activities for over a year, charging exorbitant fees. The hospital reportedly referred pregnant women to other locations for sex selection. Given Nalgonda's skewed sex ratio since 2010, the complainant requested the Police to take action against the hospital.

3. Heard Sri Srinivas Podicheti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in a case registered under Sections 312, 420, 120(B) of the IPC and Section 23 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. He contended that the Police lack the authority to register the crime and investigate the alleged offences under the Act, as only the "Appropriate Authority" or authorized officers can file complaints under the Act. Furthermore, it is argued that Section 420 of the IPC is not applicable, as there is no allegation of cheating or inducement, and the foundational facts for the offence are absent. He relies on precedent judgments of this Court and the High Court of Rajasthan, which have quashed similar cases on the grounds that the complaints were not filed by the appropriate authority and were not in accordance with the law. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are serious in nature, which requires trial. Further, at this stage, quashing of proceedings against the petitioners does not arise. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In light of the submissions made by both learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, the allegations leveled against the petitioners are under Sections 120b, 312 and 420 of IPC and Section 23 of the Act.

7. At this stage, it is significant to note Sections 27 and 28 of the PCPNDT Act, which read as follows:

27. Offence to be cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable.-Every offence under this Act shall be cognizable, non-bailable and non-

compoundable.

28. Cognizance of offences

1. No court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a complaint made by (a) the Appropriate Authority concerned, or any officer authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be, or the Appropriate Authority; or (b) a person who has given notice of not less than fifteen days in the manner prescribed, to the Appropriate Authority, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint to the court.

Explanation.—For the purpose of this clause, “person” includes a social organization.

2. No court other than that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act.

3. where a complaint has been made under clause (b) of subsection (1), the court may, on demand by such person, direct the Appropriate Autho