( 1 )

cria4176.12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4176 OF 2012

Dr. Sangita w/o. Nitin Dhakne

..

Applicant

Age.45 years, Occ. Medical Practitioner,

[original

R/o. Ganesh Par, Parli Vaijinath,

accused]

Tq. Parli Vaijinath, Dist. Beed.

Versus

1.

The State of Maharashtra

..

Respondents

Through Police Station Officer,

[Resp. No.2

City Police Station, Parli-Vaijnath

original

Taluka Parli-Vaijnath, Dist. Beed.

complainant]

2.

Shrirang Maruti Mundhe,

Age.55 years, Occ. Service,

Servicing as a Naib-Tahsildar,

Parli-Vaijnath, C/o. Office of the

Tahsildar, Parli-Vaijnath,

Taluka Parli-Vaijnath, Dist. Beed.

Mr.S.G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the applicant.

Ms.R.P. Gaur, APP for the respondent/State.

CORAM :

SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J.

RESERVED ON:

01.09.2021

PRONOUNCED ON :

28.09.2021

( 2 )

cria4176.12

J U D G M E N T :-

01.

The applicant has filed this application for

quashing the order of issue process passed against her by

the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parli-Vaijnath,

Dist. Beed in RCC No.270 of 2011. The applicant has

completed MBBS, DGO. She is running a hospital along with

Sonography Diagnostic Center. Her center is registered

under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic

Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 [for

short “PCPNDT Act”] and Rules framed thereunder. The

applicant was running her center in accordance with the

provisions of law. Respondent No.2 i.e. original

complainant visited Sonography Center/Hospital of the

applicant. He carried out inspection of the Center. The

entire record was made available to him. However, he

seized 8 “F” forms. It is alleged that the said forms

were not filled up completely. Respondent No.2 seized

Sonography machine and issued show-cause notice to the

applicant. The applicant replied the same. It is

( 3 )

cria4176.12

contended that respondent No.2 filed complaint before the

Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parli-

Vaijnath, wherein the Trial Court issued process against

the applicant. It is contended that the seized Form “F”

were not annexed to the complaint. Similarly, other

documents were also not given for the perusal of the

Magistrate. It is contended that on the basis of

averments, the Trial Court issued process under sections

23(1), 25 and 29 of the PCPNDT Act r/w Rules 9(4), 10(1),

10(1-A) and 13 of the PNPNDT Rules, which is not proper

and legal. It is contended that if there is change in

the Sonography machine, said fact is required to be

communicated within 30 days, but the Sonography machine

of the applicant was having fault and it was not working

for two days. Therefore, said information was not given

to the authority. Hence, no offence was committed by the

applicant. It is contended that respondent No.2 had no

authority file complaint, but said fact is also not

properly considered by the Trial Court. It is also

contended that the Trial Court has passed order

( 4 )

cria4176.12

mechanically. Therefore, it requires to be set aside.

02.

Notice of this Criminal Application was issued

to the respondents. Respondent No.2 filed affidavit-in-

reply, wherein he admitted that he had visited the

hospital of the applicant on 16.06.2011. He found Form

“F” were not filled in completely. It is contended that

as per the provisions of Rule 9 of the Act, it is

mandatory for the hospital to maintain and preserve

record of each patient subject to any Pre-Natal

Diagnostic Techniques in the specified Form “F”. Such

record is to be maintained for a period of two years from

the date of application of Pre-Natal Diagnostic

procedure. Section 4(3) of the Act itself shows that

deficiencies or inaccuracy found therein shall amount to

contravention of the provisions of sections 4 and 3 of

the Act. It is contended that the applicant had not

maintained record properly, particularly Form “F”.

Similarly, non-working of Sonography machine was not

informed to the authority un