SAU. NIRMALA 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 case of the Petitioner is that the Appropriate Authority Respondent No.2 along with other officers had, on 6th October, 2010 carried out inspection at the clinic of the Petitioner and found certain deficiencies. The Respondent No.2 issued notice on 7th October, 2010 and in response, the Petitioner did the necessary compliances and informed vide letter dated 8th October, 2010. Still the Respondent No.2 filed complaint bearing R.C.C. No.174 of 2010 against the Petitioner and others for offence under Sections 3(2), 4(3), 29(1), 5(1), 3(3), 4(2), 6 and 3B of the Act. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Majalgaon issued summons. Being aggrieved, Criminal Revision No.28 of 2010 was filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon but the same was dismissed, hence the present Petition. According to the Petitioner, she was not involved in sex determination and the complaint does not disclose that criminal offence was committed. Various explanations are given regarding alleged deficiencies. The Petitioner wants the complaint to be quashed and set aside.