'Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act'- Police Can Probe Offence But Court Can Take Cognizance Only On Complaint Of Appropriate Authority: P&H HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that an FIR regarding an offence under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 [PCPNDT Act] can be lodged and investigation can be undertaken by the Police, however, cognizance of the offence can be taken by the Court only on the complaint made by the Appropriate Authority as per Section 28 of the Act.

The Bench of Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu observed that Section 28 of the Act to note that it debars a Court from taking cognizance of an offence under the Act except on the complaint of the Appropriate Authority concerned or any person authorised in this behalf by the Central or State Government or the Appropriate Authority.

The case in brief 

One Dr Aparna Singhal moved to the High Court with a Section 482 CrPC Application seeking to quash the FIR filed against her under Section 23 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 [PCPNDT Act] and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

The FIR was made upon a complaint made by the Medical Officer-cum-Nodal Officer (respondent No.2) under the Act, Office of Civil Surgeon Gurugram alleging that the applicant before the Court is a part of a sex determination racket. A raid was also conducted by a team of doctors with the help of local police and thereafter, this allegation was made against her.

The arguments put forth

Applicant's counsel primarily contended that as per the provisions of the 1994 Act, an FIR for an offence under the Act cannot be registered except on the complaint of the duly notified District Appropriate Authority (DAA)- which is a body comprising of three members.

Lastly, it was argued that in the present case, since the FIR was lodged on the complaint of respondent No.2, who is not even a Member of the District AppropriatAuthority Gurugram. Nor has he been authorized by the District Appropriate Authority to file the FIR, therefore, the FIR be quashed.

On the other hand, the Additional Advocate General for the state of Haryana argued before the Court respondent No. 2, after authorization by the three-member District Appropriate Authority lodged the FIR against the petitioner and other accused after they were found to be engaged in illegal business of sex determination.

Lastly, it was contended that the police is investigating the matter and after completion of the investigation, the police would file a `Kalandra' before the District Appropriate Authority, Gurugram. Thereafter a criminal complaint along with Kalandra would be filed against the accused as per Section 28 of the Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram.

Court's observations 

At the outset, the Court referred to Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (CRM-M- No. 4211 of 2014), to hold that FIR can be lodged and the offences under the 1994 Act can be investigated by the Police but cognizance can be taken by the Court only on the complaint as per Section 28 of the Act.

Further, adverting to the facts of the case, the Court took into account the submissions made by the Additional Advocate General for the state of Haryana that after the investigation in the case, the police would file a `Kalandra' before the District Appropriate Authority, Gurugram and thereafter, a criminal complaint along with Kalandra would be filed against the accused as per Section 28 of the Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram.

Consequently, in the light of the exposition of law as held by the Division Bench in Hardeep Singh's case, the Court opined that no case for quashing the FIR and the ongoing investigation was made out. The petition was accordingly disposed of.

Case title - Dr. Aparna Singhal v. State of Haryana and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 17

Click Here To Read/Download Order