Delhi District Court
Teena Rathore vs The State on 6 May, 2025
1
IN THE COURT OF PUNEET PAHWA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS),
NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 7/2025
CNR NO. DLNE01-000321-2025
AND
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 182/2024
CNR NO. DLNE01-003086-2024
Dr. Teena Rathore
W/o Sh. Akhilesh Rathore
R/o I-101, Windsor Park,
Indirapuram, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh
........ Petitioner
Vs.
1. THE STATE
(through SHO PS Bhanajpura, Delhi)
2. District Appropriate Authority
North-East District,
Through Nodal Officer PC & PNDT Cell
North-East District,
K-Block, Ground Floor,
DC Office Complex,
Nand Nagari,
Delhi-110093
.......Respondents
Date of Institution of Revision : 01.02.2025
Petition No. 7/2025
Date of Completion of Arguments : 30.04.2025
Date of Order : 06.05.2025
Date of Institution of Revision : 18.10.2024
Petition No. 182/2024
Date of Completion of Arguments : 30.04.2025
Date of Order : 06.05.2025
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2025.05.06
15:47:43
+0530
2
ORDER
1. Vide this common detailed order, I shall dispose of both the revision petitions bearing No. 7/2025 & 182/2024. Both the revision petitions are against two separate orders both dated 22.08.2024 passed by Ld. JMFC.
2. The revision petition No. 182/2024 is directed against the impugned order dated 22.08.2024, passed by the court of Sh. Pankaj Rai, Ld. JMFC-01, North-East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, passed in CT Case No.272/2023, vide which the Ld. Trial court was pleased to allow the application of the complainant seeking condonation of delay in filing of the complaint case. Vide the said order, Ld. JMFC was pleased to condone the delay of 603 days in filing of the complaint.
3. The revision petition No. 7/2025 is directed against the impugned order dated 22.08.2024, passed by the court of Sh. Pankaj Rai, Ld. JMFC-01, North-East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, vide which the Ld. Trial court was pleased to merge the CR Case No.2048/2021 with CT Case No.272/2023 titled as "District Appropriate Authority GNCTD Vs. Teena Rathore & Ors." and took cognizance of the offence in the complaint u/s. 23 PCPNDT Act, 1994.
4. Feeling aggrieved with the said orders dated 22.08.2024, the petitioner herein has filed two separate revision petitions. An application for condonation of delay was also filed alongwith the revision petition No. 7/2025.
5. The notice of the revision petitions were issued to the respondent no.2 and on completion of the service of notices, AR of the respondent no. 2 had appeared.
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2025.05.06
15:47:51
+0530
3
6. The record of the Trial Court requisitioned and perused.
7. After hearing arguments on application for condonation of delay in revision petition No. 7/2025, vide detailed order dated 27.02.2025, this court allowed the application u/s. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act and the matter was listed for hearing arguments on the main revision petitions.
8. I have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and also gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of the petitioner.
9. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a complaint was filed by the Nodal Officer on behalf of the District Magistrate, who is the appropriate authority under the PCPNDT Act. As per section 28 of the Act, the court can take cognizance of the offences under this Act only when the complaint has been filed by the appropriate authority or any official authorized by the Central Government or the State Government. It has been argued that the District Magistrate cannot further delegate his powers and authorise someone else to file the complaint on his behalf. Therefore, the complaint was not maintainable.
10. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Ld. Trial court did not have any power to rely on the chargesheet filed in criminal case. While taking cognizance of the offence, the Ld. Trial Court had relied upon the documents filed alongwith the chargesheet, which is violating the provision of the Act. Further, it was argued that during search proceedings, there were several lapses on the part of the raiding team and the guidelines laid down to that effect as well as the procedure Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA Date: PAHWA 2025.05.06 15:47:57 +0530 4 prescribed under the Act were not followed, which was mandatory in nature. Therefore, the entire search proceedings stand vitiated and the complaint, on the basis of the said search proceedings, was not maintainable. Therefore, the cognizance was wrongly taken by the Ld. Trial Court on the basis of the documents filed alongwith the chargesheet as well as on the basis of faulty search and seizure proceedings.
11. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cognizance was taken by the Ld. Trial Court, after merging the Complaint Case and the Criminal Case which violates the mandatory provisional requirements of Section 28 of PC-PNDT Act which being a special law, overrides the general procedural provisions of the CrPC in cases of inconsistency.
12. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the legislative intent behind entrusting prosecution powers solely to the Appropriate Authority has been disregarded, preventing misuse of the Act and the Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that the Complaint case and the Criminal case cannot be merged.
13. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that as per rule 12 (1) of the Act it is specifically stated that the search should be conducted in the presence of two or more independent witnesses whereas no independent witnesses were present during the raid conducted at the centre of the Revisionist and section 30 read with rule 12 of the Act prescribes the procedure that has to be followed during search and seizure, which was not followed by the Respondent No.2 in the present complaint.
14. It has further been argued that there was delay of Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA Date: PAHWA 2025.05.06 15:48:04 +0530 5 more than five years in filing of the complaint and no explanation/justification was given by the authority as to why such huge delay was caused and therefore, the application of condonation of delay was wrongly allowed by the Ld. Trial Court without there being any justification for the same.
15. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the allegations levelled by Authority qua the Revisionist are false, incorrect and being blatantly untrue and the impugned orders are illegal and infringement of the Revisionist's liberty and Fundamental rights as they have been passed in a mechanical manner and hence, abuse of the process of law and prayed that the impugned orders under revision may be set aside in the interest of justice.
16. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent authority has submitted that the orders dated 22.08.2024 have been rightly passed by the Ld. Trial Court after going through the entire record and there is no illegality/irregularity in the said orders, which warrant any interference.
17. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the parties and perused the record.
18. Perusal of the record reveals that in case bearing CR Case No. 2048/2021 filed against the petitioner herein, vide order dated 22.08.2024, the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to merge the said case with another case bearing CT Case No. 272/2023 filed against the petitioner herein and CR Case No. 2048/2021 was ordered to be tagged with CT Case No. 272/2023.
19. The relevant part of the order dated 22.08.2024 in CR Case No. 2048/2021 is reproduced herein below:-
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA Date: PAHWA 2025.05.06 15:48:11 +0530 6 "In terms of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Manoj Krishan Ahuja Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr., 2023 SCC ONLINE DEL2303 as decided on 24.04.2023, the investigation in the above FIR shall be treated as assisted investigation and that the police investigation in the above FIR is accordingly merged in the complaint case no. 272/2023 and the cognizance has been taken in the said complaint and the accused persons were summoned. Accordingly, the present case shall stands merged with CT case no. 272/2023 in the case titled as District Appropriate Authority GNCTD Vs. Teena Rathore and Ors.
Let the case file be tagged with the above complaint."
20. Bare perusal of the order dated 22.08.2024 in CT case no. 272/2023 reveals that the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to allow the application of the complainant seeking condonation of delay in filing the complaint against the petitioner herein. The said application was disposed of by the Ld. Trial Court with following observations:
"On the basis of above cited legal position, the refusal to condone delay in the present case case will result in grave miscarriage of justice and impacting the larger societal interests. Moreover, there is no deliberate delay on the part of the complainant in the facts of this case. Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay is hereby allowed in the interest of justice and consequently. the delay in filing of this complaint is hereby condoned. The present application stands disposed of."
21. Another order dated 22.08.2024 passed in CT Case No. 272/2023 is reproduced herein below:-
"Vide separate order of even date, the application of complainant for condonation of delay in institution of Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA Date: PAHWA 2025.05.06 15:48:17 +0530 7 present complaint is hereby allowed and the delay in filing the present complaint is condoned. Perusal of record shows that chargesheet has been filed in regard to the present matter in FIR no. 391/2018, PS Bhajanpura. In terms of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Manoj Krishan Ahuja Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr. 2023 SCC ONLINE DEL2303 as decided on 24.04.2023, the investigation in the above FIR shall be treated as assisted investigation and that the police investigation in the above FIR is accordingly merged in the present complaint. Therefore, the material collected with the chargesheet shall be treated as additional material in support of present complaint. I have gone through the complaint as well as the document relied upon by the complainant and the material collected by the IO in the chargesheet of above FIR filed U/s 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the statements of witnesses recorded by the IO u/sec 161 CrPC and the documents being relied upon by the Investigation Agency in support of the case against the accused.
On the basis of totality of all the material referred above, I take cognizance of offence in the present complaint U/s 23, Pre-conception and Pre-natal diagnostic techniques (Prohibition of sex selection) Act 1994. Accordingly, both the accused Teena Rathore and Smt. Rambhetri @ Lallo @ Sharda Dai be summoned for 17.09.2024."
22. In fact, there are three orders all dated 22.08.2024 passed by the Court of Ld. JMFC-01. The first order dated 22.08.2024 was passed in CR Case No. 2048/2024 with respect to the FIR No. 391/2018 PS Bhajanpura, vide which the Ld. Trial Court had merged the said case with the complaint case No. 272/2023, after relying upon the judgment Manoj Krishna Ahuja v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2023 SCC ONLINE DEL 2303 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA Date: PAHWA 2025.05.06 15:48:23 +0530 8 after holding that investigation in the FIR shall be treated as assisted investigation.
23. The other two orders were passed in CT Case No. 272/20223, which was a complaint case filed by respondent no.2 against the petitioner herein. Vide the first order, the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to condone the delay in filing of the said complaint and vide the second order, relying upon the judgment Manoj Krishna Ahuja (supra) and after going through the complaint as well as all the documents, took cognizance of the offence in the complaint u/s. 23 PC-PNDT Act and summoned both the accused persons.
24. The scope of revision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the proceeding; (State of Rajasthan Vs. Fatehkaran Mehdu, AIR 2017 SC 796). The revisional court is empowered to call for and examine the records of the Trial court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. Object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law; (Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460).
25. Basically, the petitioner has raised two grounds. One, there was no sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing of the complaint and second, the Ld. Trial Court was not having any right to merge the chargehseet filed by the police with the complaint case and therefore, taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint as well as documents filed alongwith the chargesheet was not in accordance with law. Apart from above, Ld. Counsel has also pointed out some procedural Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA Date: PAHWA 2025.05.06 15:48:32 +0530 9 lapses while conducting search and seizure proceedings at the premises of the petitioner herein.
26. So far as the first ground regarding condonation of delay is concerned, I have gone through the impugned order dated 22.08.2024 and also the application seeking condonation of delay filed by the respondent no. 2 alongwith the complaint. The petitioner had also filed her reply to the said application and after considering all the facts of the case, the Ld. Trial court was found the delay to be justified and in his discretion, the delay was condoned. While deciding the application for condonation of delay, the Ld. Trial Court had also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of District Magistrate West District Through Neha Bansal v. Josan Diagnostics Centre & Ors., Crl. M.C. 2462/2020 dated 31.07.2023, wherein, it was held that the primary intent of PC & PNDT Act is to safeguard the rights of the unborn girl child and promote gender equality by curbing the misuse of diagnostic techniques for sex determination.
27. Keeping in mind, the object of the Act, the Ld. Trial Court considered the explanation given by respondent no. 2 to be justified and thereby condoned the delay. This court is unable to find any illegality, infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order dated 22.08.2024, vide which, the delay was condoned.
28. Admittedly, it was a discretionary remedy and it is well settled that it should be the endevour of the courts to decide the cases on merits and it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in several cases that the cases should not be thrown out on the basis of hyper-
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA Date: PAHWA 2025.05.06 15:48:38 +0530 10 technical grounds especially when the complaints are filed under the Acts serving larger social interest. The order passed by the Ld. JMFC is a well reasoned order and this court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the order vide which the delay was condoned.
29. Now, coming to the second ground raised by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the Ld. Trial Court was not justified in merging the chargesheeet with the complaint case and thereby, taking cognizance of the offence, after relying upon the documents filed alongwith the chargesheet. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in case Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation v. M/s. Manjushree Diagnostic Centre & Ors., Criminal Application No. 488/2013; Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2495; Manoj Krishan Ahuja Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr., 2023 SCC ONLINE DEL2303; Dr. Mohammad Imtiyaz v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 5502/2022; State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Dr. Mohammad Imtiyaz, SLP (Crl.) No. 103/2023 and Union of India v. Indian Radiological and Imaging Association & Ors., Special Leave Petition (C) No.16657/2016, whereas, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment Uravashi Fakay v. State of NCT of Delhi, Crl. M.C. 3567/2014 dated 19.12.2023. Infact, to some extent, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment in Urvashi Fakay's case.
30. It is pertinent to mention here that while passing the impugned order dated 22.08.2024, the Ld. JMFC has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case, Manoj Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2025.05.06 15:48:44 +0530 11 Krishan Ahuja Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr., 2023 SCC ONLINE DEL2303.
31. I have gone through the judgments being relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, however, after going through the same, this court is unable to find out as to how the said judgments help the case of the petitioner.
32. In fact, the orders dated 22.08.2024, appear to be in consonance and in accordance with the law laid down in Urvashi Fakay's case as well as in Manoj Krishan Ahuja's case. In Urvashi Fakay's case, there were two orders of taking cognizance, one on the basis of chargesheet and other on the basis of complaint u/s. 28(1)(b) of the Act. It was the order taking cognizance on the basis of chargesheet, which was set aside, whereas, the complaint was ordered to be proceeded in accordance with law.
33. In Manoj Krishan Ahuja's case, in fact, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi refused to quash the FIR on the ground that registration of FIR upon a complaint lodged by Appropriate Authority or any person authorized on it's behalf disclosing cognizable offence, conduct of investigation and filing of chargesheet is not barred under the PC & PNDT Act.
34. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had further held that the investigation carried out in the case would be treated as assisted investigation at the request of the Appropriate Authority. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, both the orders dated 22.08.2024 i.e. one in CR Case No. 2048/21 and second in CT Case No. 272/2023 are well in accordance with law as laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in above two cases.
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2025.05.06
15:48:51
+0530
12
35. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the complaint was filed through Nodal Officer on behalf of the District Magistrate, therefore, same is not maintainable. This argument is also not tenable in the eyes of law as Sec. 28 of the Act very categorically provides that no court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act, except of the complaint made by the Appropriate Authority concerned or any officer authorized in this behalf by the Central Govt. or State Govt. as the case may be or the Appropriate Authority. Meaning thereby, any officer authorized in this behalf by the Appropriate Authority can also file a complaint u/s. 28 of the PC & PNDT Act. It is not necessary that the Appropriate Authority i.e. the District Magistrate has to himself file the complaint. He can very well authorize any other person to file a complaint case on his behalf. In fact, explanation to sub (1) provides that a person includes social organization, meaning thereby, a social organization can also file a complaint u/s. 28 of the Act. Therefore, this argument raised by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner stands rejected.
36. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further argued that search and seizure proceedings were not conducted in accordance with the procedure established by law and therefore, the same stands vitiated and complaint on the basis of the said faulty search and seizure proceedings is not maintainable. It was further argued that raiding team was not duly authorized by the Appropriate Authority to take action against the petitioner.
37. I have gone through the record filed by the complainant alongwith the complaint and also the documents annexed with the complaint which includes the authorization Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2025.05.06 15:48:57 +0530 13 issued by the District Magistrate, authorizing Dr. Lalit Kumar, the Nodal Officer to file the present complaint against the petitioner herein. The authorization issued by the District Magistrate vide which, a team was conducted for joint inspection of the premises of the petitioner for the purpose of the Act and the PNDT Inspection Proforma were also filed alongwith the complaint. The documents filed alongwith the complaint prima facie appear to be in order and if there is any procedural lapses on the part of the team, the same is matter of trial and the order of taking cognizance by Ld. JMFC on the basis of the said document cannot be said to be against the law.
38. Similarly, the other argument raised by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner regarding procedural lapses i.e. non joining of independent witness during search proceedings and non-disclosure of the reason to believer on the part of the authority are also matter of trial and since the case is at the stage of pre charge evidence, the petitioner will have ample opportunity to cross-examine the witness so as to dispute the genuineness of the annexed documents and also to challenge the search proceedings.
39. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner also argued that the Ld. Trial Court could not have taken cognizance on the basis of chargesheet and documents filed alongwith the same and also merger of the chargesheet with the complaint was not in accordance with the provisions of the PC & PNDT Act. This court does not find any force in this argument of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, as the order dated 22.08.2024, vide which the cognizace was taken clearly shows that the Ld. Trial Court took Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2025.05.06 15:49:03 +0530 14 the cognizance of the offence in the complaint and not on the basis of chargesheet filed in FIR No. 391/2018 PS Bhajanpura. It has been very categorically mentioned in the said order that the investigation in the said FIR shall be treated as assisted investigation only. The merger has been done in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Manoj Krishan Ahuja case (Supra) and not under Sec. 202 or 210 of CrPC.
40. I have gone through all the judgments being relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and this court is unable to find out that the impugned orders violate any of the law laid down in those judgments.
41. Cumulative effect of the above discussion is that this court does not find any legal infirmity or perversity in the impugned orders dated 22.08.2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, which may require any interference therein, therefore, both the revision petitions bearing No. 7/2025 & 182/2024, being devoid of merits, stand dismissed.
42. File of revision petitions be consigned to Record Room. Record of Ld. Trial Court be returned alongwith the attested copies of this order.
Announced in the open court
Digitally
on 06th day of May, 2025 signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2025.05.06
15:49:09
+0530
(PUNEET PAHWA)
Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (NDPS) North-East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi