MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both the aforementioned criminal misc. petitions are arising out of same incident, therefore, with the consent of the parties, the petitions were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioner, who is Manager of Indu Ultrasound Scan Centre, Singhana, Jhunjhunu, has challenged FIR No. 2/2014 registered at Police Station PBI, Jaipur whereas in S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1422/2015, petitioner Dr. Yogesh Kumar, who is a doctor by profession, has assailed the proceedings initiated on the basis of FIR No. 2/2014 registered at Police Station PBI, Jaipur including complaint No. 7/2014 for commission of offences punishable under Ss. 2(E), 4(3), 5(2), 6, 19(1), 19(2) of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1994') and Rules 3(3)(1),(3), 4(1)(i)(ii), 9(1)(4)(6)(7)(8), 11, 17(1)(2), 18 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Technique (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1996') read with Sec. 23 of the Act of 1994 and Sec. 31 of the Rajasthan Medical Act, 1952 as also Ss. 168, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as 'IPC') pending before the Court of Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (PCPNDT Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Trial Court').

(3.) It is stated that FIR No. 2/2014 was registered at Police Station PBI, Jaipur with the allegation that the petitioner in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4985/2019 was indulged in commission of offence of sex determination by using pre-natal diagnostic techniques and has, thereby, committed offences punishable under Ss. 4(3), 5(2), 6 of the Act of 1994 and Rules 9(1), (4), (6), (7), (8), 17(1)(2), 18 of the Rules of 1996 read wit Sec. 23 of the Act of 1994.