AMRITLAL ROHLEDAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that pronouncedly emanates for consideration in this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC is, whether the offence punishable under Section 23(1) of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (for short, 'the PCPNDT Act') can be investigated by the jurisdictional police and the said police is competent to file charge-sheet before the jurisdictional criminal Court for punishing the medical practitioner / accused of the said offence(s) i.e. the petitioner herein in the present case?

(2.) The petitioner herein is a qualified medical practitioner and being on Government roll, he was posted as Block Medical Officer at Community Health Centre, Saraipali, District Mahasamund, on the date of lodging first information report against him. Respondent No.7 herein filed a complaint to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Saraipali that the petitioner is having a sonography machine installed in his residence and is engaged in sex determination which is in contravention of Section 6 of the PCPNDT Act. The said complaint was taken cognizance of by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 14-1-2019 to which he replied stating inter alia that his wife Dr. Chandrakiran Rohledar, who is a gynaecologist, is having a clinic in the name and style of Divya Pragati Clinic at Kutela, Saraipali, and she is duly registered in the office of the Chief Medical & Health Officer (CMHO) and she is running the sonography machine and condition of license granted to her is not being violated and sex determination is not done therein. But the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) did not find favour with the said reply to show cause notice so issued and ultimately, the Collector directed the CMHO for making enquiry on the said complaint. The CMHO conducted enquiry but nothing was found against the petitioner and accordingly, he submitted report to the Collector finding no merit in the complaint. But thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) made enquiry and found that in the residence of the petitioner herein, sonography machine is being run and he is not maintaining register in Form F and other discrepancies were also noticed which is an offence punishable under the provisions of the PCPNDT Act and accordingly, directed the Naib Tahsildar to register first information report (FIR) against the petitioner on 1-10-2019, and accordingly, FIR was registered against the petitioner on 1-10-2019 itself for commission of offence under Section 23(1) of the PCPNDT Act.

(3.) The petitioner herein seeks quashment of FIR so registered against him under Crime No.308/2019 at Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund for the offence punishable under Section 23(1) of the PCPNDT Act, principally on the ground that though the offence punishable under Section 23(1) of the PCPNDT Act is cognizable and non-compoundable offence under Section 27 of the said Act, but cognizance of the offence can be taken by the Court only on the complaint made by the appropriate authority concerned, or any officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be, or the appropriate authority; and the Naib Tahsildar is not the appropriate authority within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the PCPNDT Act read with notification dated 3-10- 2007 issued by the State Government and further, that no FIR can be registered even by the authorised officer and only the complaint can be filed under Section 28(1) by the appropriate authority concerned, or any officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be, and in this case, it is the District Magistrate or the Block Medical Officer. As such, registration of FIR and consequent investigation is entirely without jurisdiction and without authority of law.