Allahabad High Court
Manoj And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 August, 2025
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144410 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144410 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10999 of 2025 Applicant :- Manoj And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Kanojia,Saushthav Guha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present application has been filed to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 21.04.2024, cognizance/summoning order dated 14.11.2024 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.15670 of 2024 (State Vs. Manoj & Others) arising out Case Crime No.164 of 2024, under sections 420, 120B I.P.C. and sections 22/23 of PC & PNDT Act, 1994, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Saharanpur, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Saharanpur.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants submitted that the entire proceedings initiated against the applicant in pursuance to above sections are abuse of the process of law, since it is clear that no FIR could have been lodged on the allegation of violation of The Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection)] Act, 1994. For substantiating his submission, learned counsel for applicant relied upon Section 28 of the aforesaid Act, wherein it is specified that only a complaint procedure could have been adopted, that too, in the first instance, by a complaint lodged by the appropriate authority or by a private individual upon due notice in the prescribed manner to the appropriate authority. For ready reference Section 28 of PC & PNDT Act, 1994 is as under:-
"28. Cognizance of offences.?
(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a complaint made by?
(a) the Appropriate Authority concerned, or any officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be, or the Appropriate Authority; or
(b) a person who has given notice of not less than fifteen days in the manner prescribed, to the Appropriate Authority, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint to the court.
Explanation.? For the purpose of this clause,"person" includes a social organisation.
(2) No court other than that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act.
(3) Where a complaint has been made under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the court may, on demand by such person, direct the Appropriate Authority to make available copies of the relevant records in its possession to such person."
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application, but he could not dispute the provision of section 28 of the said Act of 1994 as highlighted by learned counsel for applicants.
6. After hearing rival submission extended by learned counsel for the parties and by bare perusal of records, the arguments raised by learned counsel for applicants seems to be justified.
7. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances, impugned charge-sheet dated 21.04.2024, cognizance/summoning order dated 14.11.2024 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.15670 of 2024 (State Vs. Manoj & Others) arising out Case Crime No.164 of 2024, under sections 420, 120B I.P.C. and sections 22/23 of PC & PNDT Act, 1994, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Saharanpur, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Saharanpur, are hereby quashed in respect of applicants herein.
8. The instant application stands allowed accordingly.
9. However, it is made clear that the above-mentioned direction will not preclude the authorities concerned to proceed afresh against the applicant, if required in pursuance to procedure available at law.
Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Saif