Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neelam Mittal vs State Of Haryana on 8 August, 2023
Author: Arun Monga
Bench: Arun Monga
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:102854
2023:PHHC:102854
CRM-M-43191-2016 (O&M) AND
CRM-M-40200-2016 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: August 08, 2023
1. CRM-M-43191-2016 (O&M)
Dr. Neelam Mittal
....Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana through Chairman/ District Appropriate Authority-cum-
Civil Surgeon, Kurukshetra
....Respondent
2. CRM-M-40200-2016 (O&M)
Dr. Neelam Mittal
....Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present:- Mr. Abhishek Sethi, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Additional AG, Haryana.
*****
ARUN MONGA, J.
Two petitions bearingNo.CRM-M-43191-2016 and CRM-M-40200-2016 are being disposed of vide this common order/ judgmentasthematerialfacts and issues involvedarecommon.Recitals herein are being taken from CR-M-43191-2016.
2. In CRM-M-43191-2016, petitioner, a physician (Gynaecologist), seeks quashing of complaint dated 13.10.2016 (Annexure P-8) filed against her for offences under Section3(3), 19, 23 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, (hereafter referred to as the 'Act'),Rules 8(1), 18(v), 18-A(7)(iv) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (hereafter referred to as the 'Rules') and Section 420 of the IPC. In connected CRM-M-40200-2016, she seeks quashing ofan FIR No.38 dated 28.05.2016 (Annexure P-7), lodged at Police Station, Jhansa District Kurukshetra and consequential proceedings.
3. Relevant allegations in the complaint (Annexure P-8) are as under: Page 1 of 12
1 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 14-08-2023 21:18:22 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:102854 2023:PHHC:102854 CRM-M-43191-2016 (O&M) AND CRM-M-40200-2016 (O&M)
"4. That on 26-05-2016, the Chairman/ District AppropriateAuthority- cum-Civil Surgeon, Kurukshetra, constituted a team, forraid/inspection, of the following officers namely:-
a) Dr. Yogender Singh, Deputy Civil Surgeon, Kurukshetra.
b) Dr. R.K. Sahal, Deputy Civil Surgeon, Kurukshetra.
c) Dr. Satvinder Singh, Nodal Officer, PNDT, Kurukshetra.
The raid/inspection team reached Naveen Nursing Home, Ajrana Kalan at about 04:40 P.M. on 26-05-2016.Theinspection/ raiding team enquired from the staff members of NaveenNursing Home and came to know that accused Dr. Neelam Mittalhad gone to Kurukshetra.
5. That accused Dr. Neelam Mittal came back to her above nursing home at about 05:20 P.M. The raiding/ inspection teaminformed accused about the raid/inspection.During theinspection/ raid at Naveen Nursing Home, it was found that the registration certificate bearing No. KR/AA/44/2006, issued under PC & PNDT Act, 1994, was valid till 17-01- 2016.
6. That after that raiding/ inspection team inspected the OPDregister, ultrasound register and Form-F etc. of Naveen Nursing Home, Ajrana Kalan. While inspecting it was found by the raiding/ inspection team thatafter the expiry of the Registration Certificate No. KR/AA/44/2006 on 17-01-2016, issued under PC &PNDT Act, accused Dr. Neelam Mittal,owner/operator of Naveen Nursing Home, has conducted Ultrasounds (ANTE NATAL CARE &GENERAL) of 1353 persons from 18- 01-2016 to 24-05-2016.
7. Thattill 26-05-2016, accused Dr. Neelam Mittal had not appliedfor the renewal of her Registration Certificate under PC & PNDT Act.The raiding/ inspection team prepared an inspection report and tookinto custody the records, including Form-F, two ultrasound registersfrom18-01- 2016 to 24-05-2016 and also sealed the ultrasound machinewith seven seals bearing stamp of DDA/KKR. All the above proceedings were made in the presence of two independent witnessesnamely Sh. Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. Sukhbir Singh R/o Village Srinagar, P.O. Bhustala, Distt. Kurukshetraand Sh. Gurit Singh S/o Sh. Maan Singh, R/o Village Ajrana Khurd, Distt. Kurukshetra.
8. That the spot memo was prepared and the same was signed by themembers of the inspecting/ raiding team. There after that Dr. R.K. Sahai, Deputy Civil Surgeon made a written request to the police of Police Station Jhansa, for registration of FIR under the provisions ofPC & PNDT Act and IC against accused Dr. Neelam Mittal.
9. That after receiving the complaint made by Dr. R.K. Sahai, the Police Station, Jhansa registered a case vide FIR No. 38 dated 28-05-2016 under section 420 of IPC and 3(3), 19, 23, Rule 8(1), 18(iv), 18-A(7)(iv) of PC & PNDT Act, 1994, P.S. Jhansa against the aforesaid Dr. Neelam Mittal."
4. On these allegations, a complaintwas filed by the State through Chairman/District Appropriate Authority-cum-Civil Surgeon, Kurukshetra against the petitioner in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra. The latter, passed the impugned order of even date (Annexure P-9) adjourning the matter to 30.11.2016 for consideration of charge.
Page 2 of 12
2 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 14-08-2023 21:18:23 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:102854 2023:PHHC:102854 CRM-M-43191-2016 (O&M) AND CRM-M-40200-2016 (O&M)
5. Onthe same allegations,an FIR No.38 dated 28.05.2016 (Annexure P-7) waslodged at Police Station, Jhansa against the petitioner by Dr. R.K. Sahai Deputy Civil Surgeon, Kurushetra. Later, the police filed report dated 19.07.2016 (Annexure P-7) in CRM-M-40200-2016 in the Court.
6. CRM-M-43191-2016was filed by the petitioner for quashing the complaint dated 13.10.2016 (Annexure P-8) and the impugned order dated 13.10.2016 (Annexure P-9) and CRM-M-40200-2016for quashing the FIR No.38 dated 28.05.2016 and consequential proceedings.
7. The petitions areinter alia premised on the following threepivotal grounds:
(i) In view of section 28 of the Act the police could not register and make investigation in the FIR against the petitioner on the same allegations which are the subject matter of the complaint against her.
(ii) The irregularities attributed to the petitioner were only bona fide mistakes in good faith and, therefore, no criminal offences were made out.
(iii) The petitioner's previous registration had expired on 17.01.2016. It had just escaped her memory to apply for renewal of her registration.
On discovering the mistake, on 25.05.2016 she had approached the Chairman, District Appropriate-Authority-cum-Civil Surgeon, Kurukshetra with an application Annexure P-2 for renewal of licence; the latter's office was closed as it was public holiday due to local Municipal elections; she telephonically informed the Chairman of the Authority of the expiry of her registration and was advised that a renewal application simpliciter would not suffice and that she had to apply for registration afresh. She, therefore, obtained a bank draft dated 26.05.2016 at 13:48:55 hours for fresh registration fee. The inspection team had reached her Ultrasound Centre on 26.05.2016 at 4-40 PM but the petitioner herself could reach there at 5.20 PM. It was thus due to a bona fide mistake due to which before the expiry of the petitioner's previous registration on 17.01.2016 and before the inspection on 26.05.2016, she could not formally apply for its renewalandafter its expiry formally apply for fresh registration. In other cases of Sidharth Hospital, Shahbad; Gaur Hospital, Shahbad, Wadhwa Hospital, Shahbad and Bansal Hospital, Ladwa, all within the jurisdiction of the same Authority, the registration of the Hospitals/Ultrasound Centres had expired and the Kurukshetra District Authority had issued fresh registration under the Act. The petitioner ought to have been similarly treated. Instead of that, she has been embroiled in criminal complaintandFIR givingrise to the instant petitions.
8. In their reply, the respondents pleaded that after expiry of registration and upto the date/time of inspection on 26.05.2016, the petitioner had conducted ultrasound in 1353 cases and that the petitioner's application for grant-renewal of registration of her Page 3 of 12 3 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 14-08-2023 21:18:23 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:102854 2023:PHHC:102854 CRM-M-43191-2016 (O&M) AND CRM-M-40200-2016 (O&M) Nursing Home was considered and rightly rejectedvide intimation letter dated 15/20.07.2016 (Annexure R-1). They denied that the petitioner had approached the District Authority on 25.05.2016 and was advised on telephone to apply for fresh registration. Story to this effect had been concocted by the petitioner. The petitioner was not absolved of the criminal liability for the violation of the provisions of the Act merely because she had obtained a bank draft dated 26.05.2016 at 13:48:55 hours towards fee for fresh registration fee, which was shortly before inspection on 26.05.2016 at 5-20 p.m. 8.1. The respondents pleaded that in the instances cited by the petitioner, wherein after expiry of previous registrations, fresh registration certificates were issued, the delay was minor and the concerned Hospitals/Ultrasound Centres themselves had approached the department. After considering their individual cases, the (expired) licences were cancelled and new licences/registration certificates were issued after following the prescribed procedure. In the case of the petitioner, she had concocted a story and forged the documents to save her skin. She had never herself approached the department for renewal/issuance of fresh registration certificate before the raid on 26.05.2016. Thus, her malafide intention was apparent on the face of it. She is not entitled to any relief from the Court.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. Learned counsels for the parties have argued on the lines of their respective stand as mentioned above.
10. Having carefully considered the rival contentions in the light of the record,I am of the opinion that the petitions deserve being allowed for the reasons and discussion as contained in the succeeding paragraphs.
11. It is not disputed that in other cases of Sidharth Hospital, Shahbad; Gaur Hospital, Shahbad, Wadhwa Hospital, Shahbad and Bansal Hospital, Ladwa, all within the jurisdiction of the same Authority the registration of the Hospitals/Ultrasound Centres had expired. It was only after expiry of the registration certifies that they had Page 4 of 12 4 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 14-08-2023 21:18:23 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:102854 2023:PHHC:102854 CRM-M-43191-2016 (O&M) AND CRM-M-40200-2016 (O&M) applied for issue of fresh registrationcertificates and the Kurukshetra Authority had issued fresh registration under the Act.
11.1. There is general and vague assertion in the reply of the respondent that the petitioner had forged the documents to save her skin. It is apparent from the bank draft (Annexure P-3) dated 26.05.2016 bearing No.UKW 931124 for Rs. 17,500/- itself that it was electronically prepared/ issued on that date at 13:48:55 hours by Punjab National Bank Branch Arjana Kalan District Kurukshetra in favour of the District Appropriate Authority-cum-Civil Surgeon.
11.2. Besides, the petitioner moved application dated 23.06.2006 Annexure P-4 to the Bank Manager, Punjab National Bank Branch Arjana Kalan seeking to know the date and time of preparation /issue of the said demand draft. A note was recorded on the application itself by the Bank official stating "Time of DDpassed/provided: 13:48.55 dated 26.05.2016 amount Rs.17,500/-. It is not disputed that this was the amount of fee for issue of fresh registration certificate under the relevant provisions. It is not even alleged that the demand draft electronically prepared/issued by the bank has been or even could have be ante-timed or antedated.
11.3. I have, therefore, no reasons to disbelieve the petitioner's version to the effect that bank draft Annexure P-3 dated 26.05.2016 bearing No. UKW 931124 for Rs. 17500/- which was electronically prepared/ issued had been prepared/issued on that date at 13:48:55 hours by Punjab National Bank Branch Arjana Kalan District Kurukshetra in favour of the District Appropriate Authority-cum-Civil Surgeon. Obviously, it had been issued before inspection of the petitioner's premises by the raiding party on 26.05.2016 at 5:20 p.m.This itself shows the petitioner's bona fide intention, even if for a moment were to accept the respondent's version that the petitioner never herself approached the department for renewal/issuance of fresh registration certificate before the raid on 26.05.2016 at 5:20 p.m.. Merely because after obtaining the bank draft on 26.05.2016 prepared at 13:48:55 hours by Punjab National Bank Branch Arjana Kalan, the petitioner could not prepare and submit formal application in the prescribed form to the office Page 5 of 12 5 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 14-08-2023 21:18:23 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:102854 2023:PHHC:102854 CRM-M-43191-2016 (O&M) AND CRM-M-40200-2016 (O&M) of District Authority , Kurukshetra before 5:20 p.m. 26.05.2016 itself would not negate her bona fide intentions to apply for and obtain a fresh registration certificate. 11.4. It thus follows that the petitioner had voluntarily made genuine and bona fide efforts to apply for fresh registration, though her efforts could not fully materialize; she lost the race against time and owing to the time constraint and for obvious reasons beyond her control, she could not prepare and submit formal application in the prescribed form to the office of District Authority , Kurukshetra before raid at 5:20 p.m. 26.05.2016. To me, it seems that after expiry of previous registration on 17.01.2016, by fading of memory due to lapse of time since the issuance of previous registration certificate for five years or owing to a bona fide mistake, the petitioner could not take steps till 25.05.2016 for renewal of the previous registration or for issuance of fresh registration certificate. After discovery of the lapse on 25.05.2016, she took immediate steps for the purpose including the obtaining the Demand Draft of Rs. 17,500/- electronically prepared on 26.05.2016 by the Bank but the inspection team raided her Centre at 5:20 p.m. 26.05.2016 and during the short time between preparation/issue of the bank draft electronically on 26.05.2016 at 13:48:55 hours by Punjab National Bank Branch Arjana Kalan and the time of raid at 5:20 p.m. 26.05.2016, she could not travel from was unable to travel from lost the race against time before she could Arjana Kalan to Kurukshetra, prepare/complete the requisite formal application in the prescribed form and submit it before the closing time of the office of District Authority, Kurukshetra on the same day before the time of raid at 5:20 p.m. 11.5. It is/was,therefore, a case of bona fide mistake of fact/lapse of memory that the petitioner could not earlier actually apply for issue of fresh registration certificate after discovery of the mistake, she had voluntarily made her best efforts to apply before the time of raid at5:20 p.m. 26.05.2016 for fresh registration certificate. 11.6. In the aforesaid context, section 79 of the IPC assumes significance, which for ready reference alongwith the illustration provided therein, is extracted herein below :-
Page 6 of 12
6 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 14-08-2023 21:18:23 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:102854 2023:PHHC:102854 CRM-M-43191-2016 (O&M) AND CRM-M-40200-2016 (O&M) "79. Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing himself justified, by law : -
Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it.
Illustration A sees Z commit what appears to A to be a murder. A, in the exercise, to the best of his judgment exerted in good faith, of the power which the law gives to all persons of apprehending murderers in the fact, seizes Z, in order to bring Z before the proper authorities. A has committed no offence, though it may turn out that Z was acting in self-defence."
Perusal of the aforesaid would reflect that justifiable actions or mistakes of fact in the context of criminal law do not constitute any crime. The statutory provision and illustration outlines the situations, under certain circumstances, when an action is considered not to be an offense. The provision envisages that if a person's action is justified by law or if they genuinely believe, due to a mistake of fact (not a mistake of law), that their actions are justified by law, then those actions are not considered an offense. The section illustratively describes a situation where person A witnesses person Z committing what appears to be murder. Person A, believing in good faith that they have the legal authority to apprehend murderers in the act, seizes person Z in order to bring them before the proper authorities. Even if it later turns out that person Z was acting in self-defense, person A's action is not considered an offense because they believed in good faith that they were justified by law to apprehend murderers. This provision and illustration highlight the importance of intention, belief, and factual circumstances in determining whether an action should be considered an offense under the law.
12. Adverting now to the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, and the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 framed there under. First let us seeSection 4 of the Act, same is reproduced herein below for ready reference:
" 4. Regulation of pre-natal diagnostic techniques.- On and from the commencement of this Act,--
1. no place including a registered Genetic Counselling Centre or Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic shall be used or caused to be used by any person for conducting pre-natal diagnostic techniques Page 7 of 12 7 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 14-08-2023 21:18:23 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:102854 2023:PHHC:102854 CRM-M-43191-2016 (O&M) AND CRM-M-40200-2016 (O&M) except for the purposes specified in clause (2) and after satisfying any of the conditions specified in clause (3);
2. no pre-natal diagnostic techniques shall be conducted except for the purposes of detection of any of the following abnormalities, namely:--
(i) chromosomal abnormalities;
(ii) genetic metabolic diseases;
(iii) haemoglobinopathies;
(iv) sex-linked genetic diseases;
(v) congenital anomalies;
(vi) any other abnormalities or diseases as may be specified by the Central Supervisory Board;
3. no pre-natal diagnostic techniques shall be used or conducted unless the person qualified to do so is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that any of the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:--
(i) age of the pregnant woman is above thirty-five years;
(ii) the pregnant woman has undergone of two or more spontaneous abortions or foetal loss;
(iii) the pregnant woman had been exposed to potentially teratogenic agents such as drugs, radiation, infection or chemicals;
(iv) the pregnant woman or her spouse has a family history of mental retardation or physical deformities such as, spasticity or any other genetic disease;
(v) any other condition as may be specified by the Central Supervisory Board;
Provided that the person conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman shall keep complete record thereof in the clinic in such manner, as may be prescribed, and any deficiency or inaccuracy found therein shall amount to contravention of provisions of section 5 or section 6 unless contrary is proved by the person conducting such ultrasonography;
4. no person including a relative or husband of the pregnant woman shall seek or encourage the conduct of any pre-natal diagnostic techniques on her except for the purposes specified in clause (2).
5. no person including a relative or husband of a woman shall seek or encourage the conduct of any sex-selection technique on her or him or both. "
A perusal of section supra shows that there is no prohibition against the conducting of pre-natal diagnostic techniques in contingencies provided for vide Sub section 4(2) clauses (i) to (vi) and sub section 4(3) clauses (i) to (v) thereof. It is not even alleged if the ultrasound (ante-natal care and general) of 1,353 persons conducted by the petitioner from 18.01.2016 to 24.05.2016 were outside the exceptions provided for vide Sub section 4(2) clauses (i) to (vi) and sub section 4(3) clauses (i) to (v) ibid.Page 8 of 12
8 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 14-08-2023 21:18:23 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:102854 2023:PHHC:102854 CRM-M-43191-2016 (O&M) AND CRM-M-40200-2016 (O&M) Obviously, the conduct of these tests was only a technical violation of the provisions of the Act resulting from the bona fide mistake/lapse of memory of the petitioner to obtain renewal/issuance of the registration certificate.
13. It is shown on record that the petitioner's application for grant-renewal of registration of her Nursing Home was rejected by the respondent vide intimation letter dated 15/20.07.2016 (Annexure R-1). Against the column of reasons for its rejection, it was mentioned that the same was as per Rule 8 and 18(4)(ii) of the Rules ibid. Though the relevant application of petitioner has not come on record, it is obvious from the pleadings and available record that the same for the grant of fresh registration certificate under the Act. This being the position, the provisions of Rule 8 ibid forrefusal to renew the certificate of registration were/are not attracted to the petition's case.
14. Rule 18A (4) of the 1996 Rules is as under:
"18A. Code of conduct to be observed by Appropriate Authorities xx xx xx xx (4) All the Appropriate Authorities including the State, District and Sub-
district notified under the Act, inter-alia, shall observe the following conduct for registration and renewal of applications under the Act, namely:-
(i) dispose of the application for renewal and new registration within a period of seventy days from the date of receipt of application;
(ii) ensure that no application for fresh registration or renewal of registration is accepted if any case is pending in any court against the applicant for violation of any provision of the Act and the rules made thereunder."
15. Clause (ii) of the Rule ibid provides that no application for fresh registration or renewal of registration is to be accepted if any case is pending in any court against the applicant for violation of any provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder.
16. Complaint (Annexure P-10) is dated 13.10.2016/ Order (Annexure P-9) shows that the said complaint was filed in the Court on 13.10.2016. The Police Report under Section 173 (Annexure P-7) prepared for submission in the Court is dated 19.07.2016. From the summons 13.10.2016 (Annexure P-10) to the accused issued by Page 9 of 12 9 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 14-08-2023 21:18:23 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:102854 2023:PHHC:102854 CRM-M-43191-2016 (O&M) AND CRM-M-40200-2016 (O&M) learned Judicial Magistrate it appears that the Police report under Section 173 (Annexure P-7) was filed on or near about 13.10.2016.The petitioner's application for issue of fresh registration certificate had been rejected vide intimation letter dated 15/20.07.2016 (Annexure R-1). This letter which shows that it had been signed by the Chairman of the Authority on 15.07.2016, though on the left side of the paper it also bears the date 20.07.2016.
16.1. It is thus abundantly clear that the petitioner's application for issue of fresh registration certificate had been rejected by the Chairman of the Authority on 15.07.2016. Even if it is assumed, that the Police Report under Section 173 (Annexure P-7) dated 19.07.2016 was filed in the Court on 19.07.2016 itself, it is obvious that its filing was after the rejection of the petitioner's application by the Chairman of the Authority on 15.07.2016.
16.2. In other words, no case was pending in any court against the applicant for violation of any provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder at the time of rejection of the petitioner's application for issue of fresh registration certificate by the Chairman of the Authority on 15.07.2016. In this situation, the prohibition under clause
(ii) of Rule 18(4) of the 1996 Rules was not attracted at the time of rejection of the petitioner's application for issue of fresh registration certificate by the Chairman of the Authority on 15.07.2016. It is not disputed in other cases of Sidharth Hospital, Shahbad; Gaur Hospital, Shahbad, Wadhwa Hospital, Shahbad and Bansal Hospital, Ladwa, all within the jurisdiction of the same Authority, the registration of the Hospitals/Ultrasound Centres had expired and the Kurukshetra District Authority had issued fresh registration under the Act.
16.3. The respondent has not disclosed relevant particulars, facts and circumstance to show how those other cases were distinguishable and on a better footing than that of the petitioner. Only vague and general assertions have been made that considering the facts and circumstances of those cases, fresh registration certificate had been issued. In the circumstances, it appears that that the petitioner's case for issue Page 10 of 12 10 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 14-08-2023 21:18:23 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:102854 2023:PHHC:102854 CRM-M-43191-2016 (O&M) AND CRM-M-40200-2016 (O&M) of fresh registration certificate is similar to those of the aforesaid other cases. As such, I am of the opinion thather application for issue of fresh registration ought to have been considered on parity with the aforesaid other cases.
17. In Hardeep Singh vs. State of Haryana and Ors1, the following questions about registration of FIR under the Act had been referred to and considered by the Division Bench:
(i) Whether FIR for the offences committed under this Act can be registered on the complaint of Appropriate Authority and can be investigated by the Police?
(ii) Whether the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. along with the complaint of an Appropriate Authority can be filed to the Court?
(iii) Whether neither FIR can be lodged nor the offences can be investigated by the Police and only complaint by the Appropriate Authority directly lies to the Court?
18. The Division Bench answered the questions as under:
(i) FIR for the offence committed under the Act can be registered on the complaint of the Appropriate Authority and can be investigated by the Police; however, cognizance of the same can be taken by the Court on the basis of a complaint made by one of the persons mentioned under Section 28 of the Act.
(ii) A report under Section 173 CrPC along with the complaint of an appropriate authority can be filed in the Court. However, cognizance would be taken only if the complaint that has been filed in accordance with Section 28 of the Act.
(iii) FIR can be lodged and offences can be investigated by the Police but cognizance only of the complaint is to be taken by the Court.
19. It is not disputed that in present case, cognizance of the offence was taken by the Court on the complaint filed by the respondent. In view of this and the law laid down by learned Division Bench, as stated above, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that the police could not register and make investigation in the FIR against the petitioner on the same allegations which are the subject matter of the complaint against her and on that ground alone the FIR should be quashed.
20. However, in view the other reasons/discussion recorded in the preceding part of this order, I am of the opinion that the continuance of the proceeding against the petitioner in complaint dated 13.10.2016 (Annexure P-8 in CRM-M-43191-2016), FIR No.38 dated 28.05.2016 (Annexure P-7 in CRM-M-40200-2016) would be an abuse of 1 CRM-M-4211-2014, decided on04.12.2014 Page 11 of 12 11 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 14-08-2023 21:18:23 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:102854 2023:PHHC:102854 CRM-M-43191-2016 (O&M) AND CRM-M-40200-2016 (O&M) the process of Court and cause undue harassment to the petitioner. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed and the said complaint and the FIR alongwith all consequential proceedings against the petitioner are quashed.
21. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA)
JUDGE
August 08, 2023
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:102854
Page 12 of 12
12 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 14-08-2023 21:18:23 :::