Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Dr Susmita Renu vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 28 September, 2016

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Cr.M.P. No. 1872 of 2016
                              --
     Dr. Susmita Renu                            .... Petitioner
                                  Versus
     The State of Jharkhand & another            ...     Opposite Parties
                              ---
     CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
                              ---
     For the Petitioner       : Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate,
     For the State            : Mr. P. K. Appu, APP
                              ---
     Order No. 02                          Dated 28th September, 2016

It has been submitted by Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner that only with respect to certain discrepancies found in Form-F under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnosis Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection), Act, 1994 ( PC & PNDT Act), the petitioner has been proceeded against. It has been stated that in the report, which has been submitted by the opposite party No. 2, it has been stated that the monthly report has regularly been submitted by the owner in Form-F in Civil Surgeon Office, Jamshedpur and no complaint with respect to sex determination of foetus has ever been received in the office. It has further been submitted that a complaint case being C2 Case No. 2985 of 2015 has been instituted against Dr. Arptia Banerjee who is Proprietor of Nucleus Diagnostic Ultra Sound Centre, Jamshedpur against whom cognizance for the offences punishable u/s 25 of the PC & PNDT Act has only been taken in similar circumstances. It has further been submitted that Section 23 of the PC & PNDT Act is a very harsh provision as once the charges are framed, necessary action can be taken by the State Medical Council for suspension of the registration of the medical practitioner. It has therefore been submitted that no case u/s 23 of the PC & PNDT Act is made out against the petitioner.

Mr. P. K. Appu, learned A.P.P. undertakes to appear on behalf of opposite party No. 2 who shall seek instruction and file affidavit within a period of four weeks.

Until further orders, further proceedings in connection with complaint case being C/2 Case No. 7301 of 2015, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, shall remain stayed.

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) MK