GANESH PATEL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have preferred these petitions under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. claiming the following reliefs:

(2.) At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned F.I. Rs. ought to be quashed and set aside; as a perusal of the provision of law contained in Ss. 27 and 28 of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act and Rule 18A of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Rules, would reveal that the respondent No. 2 was not competent to file the impugned First Information Reports.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Dr. Mohammad Imtiyaz v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet) No. 5502/2022, decided on 22/9/2022), squarely covers the controversy herein; in the said case, the Hon'ble Court had observed that under the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act, though a complaint made by the competent authority will survive, but the FIR lodged by the said authority would be in violation of the aforementioned provisions of law contained in the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act and Rules, and therefore shall not survive. And that a perusal of the impugned First Information Reports would reveal that the offences under the Ss. therein are also prime facie, not made out against the petitioners; being Sec. 315/511 I.P.C. in FIR No. 19/2016, and Ss. 315 and 120-B I.P.C. in FIR No. 10/2016, respectively.