NEERAJ GOYAL Vs. STATE & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions presented under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) arise out of same proceedings that are pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, they relating to a complaint case (CC No.56/G/2014), it being the complaint presented by the Chief District Medical Officer, she being the appropriate authority for North District in the office of the Chief District Medical Officer, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, alleging offences under Section 23 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 and Section 5 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. Since it was a complaint presented by a public servant, no formal inquiry under Section 200 Cr. PC was held. The Metropolitan Magistrate, by order dated 28.10.2006, issued summons, inter alia, to the two petitioners herein, third person summoned by the same order being Dr. Anil Kumar Grover.

(2.) After the three aforesaid persons had been summoned as accused and had appeared before the Metropolitan Magistrate, precharge evidence was adduced on the basis of which the Metropolitan Magistrate, by a detailed order dated 25.07.2015, found no sufficient ground to frame the charge against Dr. Anil Kumar Grover and petitioner Dr. Neeraj Goyal and, thus, discharged both of them. By the same order, the Metropolitan Magistrate found sufficient material to frame charge against the petitioner Dr. H.K. Singh for the offence under Section 23 of Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994. The said order was assailed before the court of Sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction by petitioner Dr. H.K. Singh through his revision petition (CR 30/15) and also by the complainant by its revision petition (CR 25/15). Both the said revision petitions were decided by a common judgment dated 05.03.2016. In terms of the said decision, the revision petition of the petitioner H.K. Singh was dismissed. The revision petition of the complainant was partly allowed, the order of discharge against Dr. Anil Kumar Grover having been upheld while it having been concluded that sufficient material had been adduced to put the petitioner Neeral Goyal on trial on the charge for offence under Section 5(3) of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.

(3.) Both these petitions have been brought by the two persons who remain in the fray facing criminal prosecution pursuant to the above mentioned orders of the courts of the Metropolitan Magistrate and the court of Sessions respectively.