DINESH AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of complaint and order taking cognizance dated 04.03.2014 in Criminal Case No.211/2014 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barwani.

(2.) According to the applicant, he is running a Sonography shop center after taking permission of appropriate authority appointed under Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Technique (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter called 'PC & PNDT Act'). The respondent, then Medical and Health Officer filed a complaint under the provisions of PC & PNDT Act alleging that the petitioner is flouting the rules laid down in the Act by not maintaining the record. The complaint was filed by A.K. Mehta, Nodar Officer. By impugned order dated 04.03.2014, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barwani took cognizance of offence under Section 23 and 25 of PC & PNDT Act and the applicant is presently facing trial before the Court

(3.) This application is filed on the ground inter alia that under Section 28 of the PC & PNDT Act, cognizance can only be taken on a complaint filed by the appropriate authority. Said Shri A.K. Mehta was never appointed an authority under Section 17 of PC & PNDT Act. Under Section 17(2)(3)(b), the District Magistrate is appointed as an appropriate authority by the State Government, and therefore, taking cognizance by the Chief Judicial Magistrate is bad in law.