Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(i) CRLMC No.4249 of 2009, CRLMC No.682 of 2017: In both the cases, chargesheets have been filed under Sections 312,315,316,109 and 34 IPC and Sections 23 and 25 of the PC&PNDT Act, Section 5(3)(4) of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and Section 16(1) of the Orissa Clinical Establishment Act, 1990. In so far as offences under the PC&PNDT Act are concerned, though investigation is permitted being cognizable in nature, however, the complaints were needed to be filed by the DMs which is the statutory mandate and therefore, the courts below could not have taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 23 and 25 thereof on the strength of the chargesheets, whereas, taking cognizance of offences under the IPC and other Special Acts is tenable in law and hence, it calls for no interference;
(ii) CRLMC No.172 of 2017, CRLMC No.3729 of 2012, CRLMC No.3251 of 2012 and CRLMC No.2086 of 2012: In all the above cases, since the complaints have been filed by the CDMOs and consequential orders passed, the proceedings for offences under Sections 23 and 25 of the PC&PNDT Act cannot be sustained for not being filed by the DMs;
(iii) CRLMC No.1548 of 2017, CRLMC No.1547 of 2017, CRLMC No.1733 of 2015 and CRLMC No.1546 of 2017: In the aforesaid cases, the ADMOs have filed the complaints and not the concerned DMs and therefore, the proceedings for the offences under Sections 23 and 25 of the PC&PNDT Act are to be held as not maintainable in law;
(iv) CRLMC No.904 of 2013: In the present case, the EM has initiated the prosecution under Sections 23 and 25 of the PC&PNDT Act by filling the complaint and therefore, the same is legally untenable.

13. The conclusion in respect of CRLMC No.4249 of 2009 and CRLMC No.682 of 2017 is in agreement with an earlier decision of this Court in CRLMC No.2082 of 2010 in case of Ramesh Chandra Naik and others Vrs. State of Odisha decided and disposed of on 3rd April, 2018, wherein, it has been concluded that Section 27 of the PC&PNDT Act stipulates that every offence under the said Act being cognizable and Section 154 Cr.P.C. since provides that every information relating to the commission of cognizable offence has to be registered as an FIR and as per Section 156 Cr.P.C. when an OIC of the P.S. can investigate any cognizable case committed within its local jurisdiction even without the orders of a Magistrate, however, in view of the special provision in the PC&PNDT Act, lodging of an FIR and submission of chargesheet for such offences is impermissible as any such cognizance shall have to be based on a complaint moved by the authority empowered to do so. Hence, therefore, in both the cases since the cognizance of the offences under Sections 23 and 25 of the PC&PNDT Act has been taken on the basis of chargesheets and not on the strength of complaints as envisaged in Section 28 of the PC&PNDT Act, the Court has therefore held that the impugned proceedings cannot stand and shall have to be terminated. In the said decision, the concerned authority was granted the liberty to file complaint before the appropriate court. However, in the present case, the Court does not wish and is not inclined since no real and worthy purpose would be served by granting such liberty after so long. With regard to the challenge as to the constitution of the AA by the State Government as per the OM not to be consistent with Section 17(3) of the PC&PNDT Act, it has remained so and survived till now and though raised by the learned counsel appearing for some of the parties but the Court is of the view that said question should be left open for determination in such other proceedings at appropriate point of time.

15. The end result is restated:

(i)CRLMC No.4249 of 2009 and CRLMC No.682 of 2017: Both the petitions stand allowed to the extent indicated above. As a logical sequitur, the orders of cognizance vis-à-vis offences under Sections 23 and 25 of the PC&PNDT Act are hereby set aside. But, in so far as other offences under the IPC and Special Acts are concerned, the proceedings are to continue wherein the petitioners shall have the opportunity to defend during the enquiry and trial since it would require examination of the materials to find out existence of a prima facie case; and