Local Police Competent To Investigate Cognizable Offenses Under PNDT Act: Punjab And Haryana High Court

The bench comprising Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill dismissed the petition holding that the same is without any merit.

The case came up as a result of an FIR being lodged on secret information that illegal sex determination was being carried on. A PNDT team was constituted to investigate the issue by the Civil Surgeon, Fatehabad. Two accused were caught receiving money. Several other evidence were also recovered from the spot. An FIR was lodged accordingly.

The court addressed the rival submissions individually that were placed before it. As to the first contention put forth by the petitioner that the alleged amount was never shared with him, it was rather shared among the other two accused persons. This carves out the possibility of him being involved in the matter. After rejecting this argument, the court stated that his involvement has been proved through the recovery of certain evidence i.e., the CCTV footage in which the accused can be seen, and the ultrasound machine recovered from the spot that is registered and purchased in his name. Stating that this contention of the petitioner does not carry any weight the court held that the same cannot be accepted.

In the second contention, the petitioner tried to carve out the possibility of his involvement by stating that neither he was arrested on the spot nor was the test conducted at his clinic. He even argued that the recovered machine does not belong to him. For the similar reasons stated above, the court negated the second contention.

The evidence collected by the police is sufficient to establish the involvement of the petitioner. The contention, as such, stands negated.

The third contention raised dealt with issues raised regarding territorial jurisdiction of the team appointed by Civil Surgeon, Fatehabad because the incident allegedly took place in Hissar. The court rejected this contention and stated that the commission of the offense commenced from Faridabad because the conspiracy was hatched there.

In these circumstances, the association of the team constituted by Civil Surgeon, Fatehabad cannot be said to be not having any jurisdiction, particularly when the commission of the offenses can be said to have commenced from Fatehabad where a conspiracy was hatched, though, the offenses culminated in Hisar where the test was performed.

The fourth contention was that the FIR was lodged at the instance of the complainant who is not a competent authority. Rejecting this contention, the court held that this bar cannot be extended to the proceedings pertaining to lodging of FIR. The police are bound to register an FIR upon receiving information pertaining to the commission of a cognizable offense under section 154 CrPC.

The bar as envisaged in Section 28 of the PNDT Act is a bar against taking cognizance by the Court wherein it is provided that it is only upon a complaint made by Appropriate Authority that a Court may take cognizance of an offense. The said bar cannot be extended to the proceedings pertaining to lodging of FIR, as any person can give information pertaining to the commission of a cognizable offense to the police.

Another contention that as per section 17(4)(e) of the Act only an Appropriate Authority, authorized by virtue of sections 17A, 20, and 30 of the Act can carry out an investigation and the police do not a have role in it, the court held that there is no provision in the PNDT Act that can absolutely rule out the involvement of the police, such a bar is only under section 28 of the PNDT Act.

The offenses under the PNDT Act have been classified as 'cognizable' offenses without there being any exclusion clause ruling out police investigation as is there under provisions of section 45(1A) of PMLA and without there being any kind of rider defining a particular class of police officers only to be competent as is noticed in the proviso t Section 14(i) of Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956.

As to the last contention, the court held that it is specifically stated in the reply filed by the State that a Kalandra is going to be filed by the Appropriate Authority whereas the police have separately filed a charge sheet under 173 Cr.P.C. in respect of the offenses under IPC only. Therefore, it cannot be said that Section 28 PNDT Act has been violated.

There is no absolute bar under PNDT Act against the police investigating a case, as evident from Rule 18-A(3)(iv) of the Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996.

In the light of the above arguments, the court dismissed the petition.

Case Title : Dr. Anant Ram v. State of Haryana

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 61

Click Here To Read/Download Order