LAWS(KAR)-2024-8-125

SUBHALAKSHMI N. Vs. STATE

Decided On August 09, 2024
Subhalakshmi N. Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, both doctors, are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.1938 of 2024 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-I, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, pursuant to a complaint initiated by the 1st respondent under Sec. 200 of the Cr.P.C., alleging offences under Ss. 20(1), (2), (3) and 23(1) and (2) of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 ('the Act' for short).

(2.) Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:- Both the petitioners are doctors. The 1st petitioner is the proprietor of the Diagnostic Centre in the name and style of 'Medizone Medical Centre' (the Centre' for short). The 2nd petitioner is a certified registered operator of the ultrasound machine at the Diagnostic Centre. It is the averment in the petition that the ultrasound diagnostic procedures are conducted at the centre between 10.30 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. and between 6.00 p.m. and 7.00 p.m. on the prescription of doctors who direct a test to be conducted upon the patients. When things stood thus, the 1st respondent/Appropriate Authority under the Act, on receipt of certain information, conduct an inspection at 4.00 p.m. on 8/12/2023 at the Centre. At that time, it was found that the ultrasound room, which was situated opposite the reception counter, was open and in active mode. It is said that the lab technician have admitted that scanning was done in the Centre. The medical centre is closed, the scanning machine is locked. The result of conduct of inspection and seizure of materials is filing of a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate invoking Sec. 200 of the Cr.P.C., read with Sec. 28 of the Act, by registering a crime for offences punishable as afore-quoted. The registration of criminal case and issuance of summons is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

(3.) Heard Sri S. Praveen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri B.N. Jagadeesh, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.