Delhi High Court: In a petition filed for quashing the FIR registered for the offence under Section 25/26/27 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Technique (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, (‘PC & PNDT Act’), Neena Bansal Krishna, J.*, stated that the offences under PC & PNDT Act are cognizable and thus, registration of FIR and investigation by the police per se is not barred under law. The Court stated that the grounds for seeking quashing of the FIR were without merits and accordingly dismissed the petition.
Background
Dr, Randhawa Ultrasonography Imaging and Research Institute (‘Petitioner 1’) was governed by the provisions of PC & PNDT Act regarding issues of pregnancy, Prohibition of Sex Selection, Ultrasonography. Petitioner 1 was recognized by Jefferson Institute Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, which maintained a very high standard in recognizing any Institute and providing continued recognition.
It was submitted that originally, the Appropriate Authority under PC & PNDT Act for the Petitioner 1, was District Magistrate, West (‘DM, West’). However, from 26-9-2016, the Appropriate Authority was changed to District Magistrate (South-West District). An official communication to this effect was received by the petitioner through e-mail 30-11-2016 and the petitioners were complying with all the formalities with the Appropriate Authority. Petitioner 1 also sent intimation Letters to CDMO, District Appropriate Authority, South-West District, (‘DAA, South-West’) regarding change, use and installation of ultrasound/sonography machines by Petitioner 1, which was duly received by it.
It was contended that on 21-12-2017, officials of the Office of DM, West District inspected the premises of the petitioner. Though he protested as it was not the Appropriate Authority, but by use of brutal force, Respondent 2 conducted the inspection and checked all the records of Petitioner 1. They stayed in the premises for about five hours and illegally took away all the Records.
On 23-12-2017, FIR under Section 25/26/27 of PC & PNDT Act was registered on the Complaint of District Appropriate Authority, West (‘DAA, West’) based on the findings of Joint Inspection conducted on 21-12-2017.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
1. Whether DAA, West District was the competent authority.
The first ground for quashing of the complaint/FIR was sought was that the Inspection was carried out by DAA, West District when, in fact, the Competent Authority was DAA, South-West District.
The Court stated that it was evident that though inadvertently, the Files were transferred to District Appropriate Authority, South-West in 2016, but as per the Notification of NCT of Delhi, this sub-division Colony never got transferred to South-West District. As soon as this anomaly was noticed, the files were recalled by DAA, West. Consequently, the inspections were done with due Authority. Merely because there was inadvertent transfer of the files would not make DAA, South-West as the Competent Authority.
The Court stated that there was no Notification transferring the sub-division to South-West. The sub-division where the Petitioner 1 was situated, was never notified for transfer to District South-West. Therefore, it was District West, which continued to be the Appropriate Authority.
2. Registration of FIR under PC & PNDT Act
The second ground taken by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR was that under Section 28 PC & PNDT Act specifically provides that cognizance could be taken only on the Complaint of Appropriate Authority and therefore, no FIR could be registered under the Act.
The Court stated that Section 28 of PC & PNDT Act, makes it abundantly evident that a complaint before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, could be initiated either by Appropriate Authority or Central Government or State Government, which may authorise an Officer other than the Appropriate Authority to file a Complaint on which cognizance can be taken by the Court concerned.
However, the question emerged that whether the FIR could be registered and whether charge-sheet could be filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate and if so done, what would be the status of such charge-sheet. The Court stated that under PC & PNDT Act, there was no mention of filing of a charge-sheet under the Act. Section 27 of the PC & PNDT Act provides that the offence under the Act, shall be cognizable non-bailable and non-compoundable.
The Court stated that from the harmonious reading of the provisions of PC & PNDT Act, which make the offences as cognizable and non-bailable along with the provisions of CrPC, it could not be said that no FIR could be registered or that the registration of FIR was barred under PC & PNDT Act. Further, Rule 18A(3)(iv) of PC & PNDT Act provides that as far as possible, Police being not involved for investigating cases under the Act, which again implied that the investigations by the Police, were not completely ousted. The Court stated that the PC & PNDT Act also envisaged investigations by the Police, if so required.
The Court stated that though Section 28 of PC & PNDT Act was specific in providing that the cognizance could be taken only on the complaint, but it nowhere barred the registration of FIR or the investigations to be conducted therein or a charge-sheet be filed.
The Court referred to Section 4(2) of CrPC and stated that all offences under ‘any other law’ were also to be investigated, tried or otherwise to be dealt with as per provisions of CrPC, unless an exception was provided in ‘any other law’. Therefore, the Court stated that the offences under PC & PNDT Act are cognizable and thus, registration of FIR and investigation by the police per se is not barred under law.
The Court stated that in the present case, cognizance was taken neither on the FIR nor on the Charge-Sheet, but on the Complaint filed separately by DAA. The Report under Section 173 of CrPC is only a part of the investigation as the initial Search, Seizure, etc. was carried out by the DAA. Therefore, this ground for seeking quashing of the FIR was also without merits.
Thus, the Court dismissed the present petition.
[Dr. Randhawa Ultrasonography Imaging and Research Institute v. State (NCT of Delhi), W.P.(CRL) 1583 of 2021, decided on 13-5-2025]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Percival Billimoria, Senior Advocate with Khowaja Siddiqui, Tushar Bathija, Jay Singh, Shilpa Ohri, Aswini Kumar, Rachita Sood and Arbaz Khan, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Yasir Rauf Ansari, Additional Standing Counsel (Crl.); Alok Sharma and Amit Sahni, Advocates with SI Mukesh Yadav, PS Hari Nagar.
