RAVINDRA KADU PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Petition has been filed to quash complaint filed by Appropriate Authority (hereafter referred as "complainant") under the provisions of Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereafter referred as "Act") and the Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (hereafter referred as "Rules").

(2.) The Petition is Admitted and has been heard finally. Learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondents submitted elaborate arguments. With this matter some other similar matters were also argued and Counsel for Petitioners adopted arguments of each other on law points to request for quashment of Criminal Trials against accused.

(3.) The Petitioners claim that Petitioner No.2 is running her Maternity Home wherein Petitioner No.1 is running his registered sonography centre under the name and style as "Suvidha Hospital and Sonography Centre" at Jamner. It is claimed that the Petitioners are running hospital and registered sonography centre without any complaints and complying all the provisions of the Act and Rules. It is claimed that the permission to run the sonography centre was to expire on 17th November, 2011 and Petitioner No.1 had applied for renewal on 14th October, 2011 but it has been granted only on 3rd November, 2012 with effect from 17th November, 2011, for five years. The Petition makes grievances as to how inspite of applying for renewal on time, there was delay. According to the Petitioners, Respondent purporting to be Appropriate Authority, conducted Panchnama of the sonography machine on 1st December 2011 and issued notice and sealed the sonography machine on 5th December, 2011. Petition gives particulars as to how Petitioners moved the Courts and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamner, vide order dated 19th May, 2012 directed to open seal of sonography machine and so Writ Petition No.2121 of 2012 filed by the Petitioner No.1 in the High Court came to be withdrawn on 20th June, 2012. According to the Petitioners, Respondent had given notice dated 9th December, 2011 (Exhibit G) claiming violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules. The Petitioners gave the appropriate reply on 12th December, 2011. According to the Petitioners, even the District Advisory Committee accepted the explanation of the Petitioners and recommended to open the seal of the sonography machine. However, according to the Petitioners, the Respondent filed complaint bearing R.C.C. No.56 of 2012 before the Court of J.M.F.C., Jamner alleging offence under Sections 4(3), 5, 6, 27 read with Sections 23, 25 and 28 and Rules 9(1)(4), 10(1A) of the Act and Rules. Claim is that the Petitioners had not committed any offence and the complaint deserves to be quashed. It is claimed that it is wrong for the Respondent to allege that there were irregularities in maintaining F Form register and taking signatures of the pregnant woman on declaration when online reports submitted by the Petitioners were complete in all respects. It is submitted that online forms submitted were complete in all respects. The Petitioners claim that deficiencies pointed out were not there and that there were complete compliances of the provisions of the Act and Rules.