Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Girish Mehta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 January, 2016
1
M.Cr.C. Nos. 6408/2013, 6407/2013 & CR.R No.1175/2012
21/01/2016
Shri S.R. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel with Shri
R. Khan for the applicant.
Ms. Prita Moithra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent / State.
These M.Cr.Cs and Criminal Revision are being dealt together since they arise out of common cause of action.
M.Cr.C. No. 6408/2013 is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C by Dr. Girish Mehta and pertains to quashment of complaint, and setting aside the order dated 22/07/2003 passed by Trial Court taking cognizance of the matter.
M.Cr.C. No.6407/2013 is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C by Dr. Nirmal Mittal and pertains to quashment of complaint and setting aside the order dated 18/06/2007 passed by Trial Court taking cognizance of the matter.
Criminal Revision no.1175/2012 filed under Sections397 & 104 of the Cr.P.C filed by Dr. Girish Mehta for setting aside the order dated 26/07/2012 passed by the XII Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Revision 458/12.
Brief facts of the cases in nutshell are that the 2 petitioners were running their own clinics and a sonography and X-ray center and criminal complaints were filed under Sections 22, 28 of the PC & PNDT Act,1994 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate for not maintaining records in From-F as prescribed under the said Act and it was alleged from the material seized that offence was committed which was punishable under Section 23 & 25 of the PC & PNDT Act, 1994. The complaint was filed by Smt. Renu Pant, Additional Collector, Indore and Dr. Sharad Pandit as the appropriate authority /authorised officers and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore took cognizance in the matter.
Counsel for the applicant vehemently urged that the complainants in both the M.Cr.Cs, Smt. Renu Pant as well Dr. Sharad Pandit were not appropriate authorities or authorised officers for filing the compliant in the District Indore under Sections 22, 28 of the PC & PNDT Act and the trial Court also did not have jurisdiction to take cognizance in the matter. Counsel submitted that other doctors involved in M.Cr.C. No.4393/15 and 4395/13 was successful and High Court held that the complaint under Section 28 of the Act could be filed only by District Magistrate and in the present cases it was the Additional District Magistrate and Dr. Sharad Pandit's team who had filed the complaint. Counsel for the applicant had also 3 filed an application, in M.Cr.C. No.6408/13 for deciding the petitions in the light of the order dated 04/07/2013, passed by the Apex Court in the matter of State in Special Leave Petition No.2226/2014, wherein the Apex Court had held thus:
"Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, drew our attention to paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment wherein while considering Section 17(3) (b) and (28) (1) (a) of the Act, the High Court stated that action under the Act can be taken by the Court only when a complaint is made by "the appropriate authority" or "by any officer authorised by the Central Government or State Government, otherwise such action would not be valid in law. While stating so, the High Court has omitted to note that under Section 28 (1) (a) any officer authorised by the "Appropriate Authority" notified under Section 17(3) would also be entitled to initiate action under the Act.
While clarifying the said position, since we do not find any flaw in the ultimate order of the High Court based on the facts noted in the case on hand, we do not propose to interfere with the same.
The Special Leave petitions stand disposed of with the above clarification."
and hence Counsel prayed that the complaints filed against the petitioners be quashed and orders dated 26/08/2003 as well as 18/06/2007 passed by the trial Court taking cognizance needs to be set aside.
On considering the above submissions I find that these two M.Cr.Cs need to the allowed in the light of the Apex Court order and they are hereby allowed. The 4 complaints filed by the complainants are hereby quashed and the orders 26/08/2003 as well as 18/06/2007 passed by the trial Court taking cognizance are also set aside and as a result the Criminal Revision is rendered infructuous and is also dismissed as such.
With the aforesaid submissions these M.Cr.Cs and Criminal Revision stands disposed off.
Original order be retained in the record of M.Cr.C. No.6408/2013 and a copy thereof be placed in the record of M.Cr.C. No.6407/2013 and Cr.R. No.1175/2012.
C.C. as per rules.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge sumathi