Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the complaint which has not been filed by the appropriate authority or Officer authorized and the order taking cognizance passed by the trial court in the Complaint Case No. 582/2013 and has challenged the entire proceedings initiated in the said case pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur.

2. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is a pathologist practicing in Bilaspur for the last many years and for the purpose of pathological diagnosis, he has installed the Sonography machine. In the year 2011, a criminal complaint was preferred against the petitioner for commission of the offence punishable under Section 3 & 4 of the Pre- conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter 'PC&PNDT Act') read with Section 23 and 25 of the Pre-Conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter 'PC& PNDT Act').

"The State Government shall appoint, by notification in the Official Gazette, one or more Appropriate Authorities for the whole or part of the State for the purposes of this Act having regard to the intensity of the problem of pre- natal sex determination leading to female foeticide."

5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that cognizance of offences could not have been taken by the learned Trial Court under PC& PNDT Act in the absence of any complaint made by Appropriate Authority or any officer authorized on behalf of it, as per clear mandate of Section 28 of the Act, and cognizance taken on the basis of a charge- sheet filed by the prosecution was impermissible and untenable in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cognizance which has been taken under the PC & PNDT Act, complaint has not ben filed by the competent authority under Section 28 of the PNDT Act. He submits that the complaint itself is void ab initio and without jurisdiction for which no cognizance can be taken. He placed his reliance in the case of Raj Kumar Badwani Vs. Collector, Ex-Officio Chairman PC & PNDT Act,CG & Another reported in 2016 (4) CGLJ 413, wherein in para 16, it has been held as under:

In view of the above notification, the appropriate authority is only the District Magistrate. He therefore submit that the order passed by the learned trial court is illegal, perverse and against the settled principle of law and the same deserves to be set aside.

7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the present petition and states that the allegations are serious in nature and that the defect, if any, was cured after the complaint as per Section 28 was filed by the Appropriate Authority. It is further submitted that offences under PC & PNDT Act are cognizable, non-bailable and non- compoundable in nature as provided under Section 27 and the power of arrest in cognizable cases vests with the police only since no such power has been vested in the Appropriate Authority by virtue of PC & PNDT Act. It is vehemently argued that the words 'as far as possible' in Rule 18A(3) of PC&PNDT Rules would show that the role of police in investigating cases under the Act and assisting the Appropriate Authority is not ruled out per se, and it is only the 'cognizance' which is to be taken by the Courts as per Section 28 of the Act.