HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 153/2021

Smt. Pramila W/o Shri Rakesh Kumar Lamba, aged about 41

years, R/o Kumj Vihar Colony, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. D.S. Thind

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Laxman Solanki, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

Order

09/11/2021

The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition

under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. assailing the Order dated

30.01.2021 passed by the Special Judge, Women Atrocities &

Dowry Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 44/2019

(C.I.S. No. 41/2019), whereby order to frame charges for the

offences under Sections 4, 5 & 6/23 of the Pre-conception and

Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act,

1994 and Sections 315/511, 420 & 120-B I.P.C., has been passed.

As per prosecution story, the petitioner playing a role of an

agent for conducting determination of sex of foetus, accepted a

sum of Rs. 80,000/- from the decoy, for which FIR No. 51/2018

was registered and after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.

The trial court vide order impugned framed charges under

Sections 4, 5 & 6/23 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal

Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994

(2 of 3)

[CRLR-153/2021]

(afterwords referred to as “the Act of 1994”) and Sections

315/511, 420 & 120-B I.P.C. against the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record, order

impugned as well as charge-sheet.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there

was no reasonable ground available before the trial court to frame

charge under Section 315/511 I.P.C., however, he does not dispute

framing of charges under the Act of 1994.

Learned Public Prosecutor while supporting the order

impugned passed by the trial court, has submitted that the trial

court after appreciating the evidence and other material available

on record, has rightly passed the order impugned, which does not

call for any interference.

In the considered opinion of this Court, on taking evidence

on record on its face value, the same does not constitute the

offence punishable under Section 315/511 of I.P.C. At the most,

the allegations levelled against the petitioner constitute the

preparation of offence, for which she cannot be charged for

attempt to commit offence under Section 511 I.P.C. The trial

court in its order impugned has observed that there is prima facie

evidence on record to suggest that in furtherance of conspiracy,

the petitioner with intent to prevent the child from being born,

accepted wrongful gain and performed pre-natal diagnostic

technique. In the considered opinion of this Court, the above

allegation constitutes offence under Section 23 read with Sections

4, 5 & 6 of the Act of 1994 and will not constitute offence of

attempt to commit the offence under Section 315/511 I.P.C. For

(3 of 3)

[CRLR-153/2021]

constituting this offence, the prosecution has to prove some

further acts on the part of the accused to commit offence under

Section 315 I.P.C.

In the above background, the order impugned passed by the

trial court qua framing of charge under Section 315/511 I.P.C.

against the petitioner is not sustainable.

Consequently, the present criminal revision petition is partly

allowed. The impugned Order dated 30.01.2021 passed by the

trial court to the extent of framing charge under Section 315/511

I.P.C. against the petitioner is set aside; she is discharged from

the offence under Section 315/511 I.P.C. The rest of the order

passed by the trial court is maintained.

(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J

20-Inder/-