Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Mohan Lakhole vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 April, 2017
MCRC-14590-2015
(DR. MOHAN LAKHOLE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
03-04-2017
Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Pawan
Gujar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri S.K. Shrivastava, learned PL for the respondents/State.
The petitioner who is a doctor has knocked the door of this Court under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashment of the order dated 10.08.2015 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashtha in R.T.No.906/2015 taking congnizance under Sections 23 and 25 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the PC & PNDT Act), on the ground that complaint has not been filed by the appropriate authority/person authorized as specified under Section 17 of the Act. However, taking cognizance on such complaint is barred.
Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Manvinder Singh Gill (Dr.) Vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR (2014) MP 1176 inter-alia contending that S.L.P. (Cri) No.2226/2014 preferred by the State of M.P. has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 03.08.2015. Later regarding observations of omission of the Supreme Court this Court has taken note of it in M.Cr.C. No.10264/2016 (Dr. Das Motwani Vs. State of M.P.) decided on 30.01.2017. In the context of the said judgment, the complaint filed by the Block Medical Officer in the present case which is neither the appropriate authority nor the person authorized under the provisions the PC & PNDT Act and the notification of the State Government on 20.04.2017, therefore, not incompetent authority, and taking cognizance on such complaint under Section 28 is in excess to the jurisdiction of the trial Court, therefore, it is liable to be quashed.
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer has made unsuccessful attempt to satisfy this Court that the Block Medical Officer would have authorized by the appropriate authority, therefore, he would have preferred the private complaint. In such circumstances, order taking cognizance and the complaint filed by the Block Medical Officer under the provisions of PC & PNDT Act may not be dismissed.
After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on consideration of the facts of this case and also the judgment of the Manvinder Singh Gill (Dr.)(Supra) as well as the judgment of Dr. Das Motwani (Supra) filed the complaint by the Block Medical Officer under the provisions of the PC & PNDT Act is incompetent. The Block Medical Officer is neither appropriate authority under Section 17 nor he is authorized. On such complaint cognizance taken by the Magistrate is barred under Section 28 of the PC & PNDT Act.
In that view of the matter for the reasons given in detail in the case of Manvinder Singh Gill (Dr.)(Supra) as well as in the case of Dr. Das Motwani(Supra) and looking to the facts of the present case I do not find any distinction, to take different view therefore, the complaint preferred by the Block Medical Officer is hereby quashed and the order taking cognizance is also set aside.
Accordingly, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The complaint preferred by the Block Medical Officer is hereby quashed and the order taking cognizance is set aside. However, It is open to the State Government to take recourse of law as permissible. In the facts of the case, parties to bear their own cost.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE Raju