(1.) Since the facts and the issue involved in all these petitions are similar, all these petitions are heard and decided together by this common judgment.
(2.) Special Criminal Application No.1143 of 2013 is filed with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned FIR registered at City 'B' Division Police Station Jamnagar, being C.R.No.II-39 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Ss. 4(3), 5(1)(b), 5(1)(c), 5(2), 6(a) and 25 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques [Prohibition of Sex Selection] Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act') and Rules 9(1), 9(4) and 10(1A) of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques [Regulation and Prevention of Misuse] Rules, 1996 (for short, 'the Rules'). Said complaint was lodged by District Health Officer. While complaint being C.R.No.II-406 of 2012 is filed by appropriate authority under the PC&PNDT Act, before Visnagar Police Station, Mehsana, which is challenged by filing Criminal Misc. Application Nos.1918 of 2013, 13519 of 2013 and 16686 of 2014.
(3.) So far as facts of Special Criminal Application No.1143 of 2013 is concerned, complaints were received against the petitioner, who is practicing as a Gynecologist at Jamnagar and she was illegally examining foetus by charging a huge amount. To take out legal proceedings against her, one Shardaben was selected as decoy patient who was carrying two months pregnancy and she was sent to the petitioner for examination. She was called on 20/2/2013 by the petitioner for examination to know the sex of foetus. To carry out a sting operation, three government witnesses were kept present and a panchanama was drawn including noting down number of currency notes. Thereafter, on 20/2/2013, the first informant and the panchas were standing at some distance from nursing home of the petitioner and Shardaben went to the hospital for examination. For carrying out the operation, a hidden camera was installed on the dress of Shardaben. After Shardaben was examined, she was informed that the foetus was found not breathing and, therefore, Shardaben was referred to Dr. Sunil Mehta, who is running Image Point Diagnostic Centre. At that time, the petitioner charged Rs.400.00 for doing sonography and examining Shardaben. Thereafter, Dr.Sunil Mehta examined Shardaben. Thereafter, Shardaben asked the petitioner regarding the report of Dr.Sunil Mehta and at that time the petitioner called Shardaben at 5 p.m. to visit her hospital. In the evening, when the petitioner saw report of Dr.Sunil Mehta, she informed Shardaben that foetus was dead and an operation was required to be carried out. At that time, Shardaben asked about sex of foetus [fetal gender identification] and the petitioner informed her that it is a female foetus. Thereafter, the petitioner advised Shardaben to come on next day without taking any water or food for carrying out abortion and also told Shardaben that if her mother-in-law would come tomorrow, the petitioner would inform her also that it is a female foetus. Thereafter, the petitioner charged Rs.9000.00 for disclosing the sex of foetus. Shardaben came out and gave a signal and, thereafter, a raid was carried out and amounts of Rs.9000.00 and Rs.450.00 were recovered from the petitioner. With such allegations, complaint is filed against the petitioner. 3.1 Therefore, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, this petition is filed by the accused on the ground that said FIR cannot be filed, more particularly when the Act provides that unless it is filed by an authorized officer by way of private complaint before the competent Court such proceedings cannot be entertained. Therefore, it is prayed to quash the impugned complaint.