Criminal Misc. No. 26849-M of 2007
1 Criminal Misc. No. 30442-M of 2007
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
1. Criminal Misc. No. 26849-M of 2007
Dr. Kiran Garg Petitioner Versus State of Punjab Respondent AND
2. Criminal Misc. No. 30442-M of 2007 Dr. Kiran Garg Petitioner Versus State of Punjab Respondent
Date of Decision: 9.3.2010
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. N.K. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) By this common order, Criminal Misc. No. 26849-M of 2007 and Criminal Misc. No. 30442-M of 2007 shall be decided together. In both the petitions, a prayer has been made for quashing of the complaint (Annexure P10) filed under Sections 23 and 25 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “1994 Act”) for Criminal Misc. No. 26849-M of 2007 And 2 Criminal Misc. No. 30442-M of 2007 alleged violation of the provisions of Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 & 29 and Rule 9, 10 (1A), 17 and 18 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (Amended to- date) (hereinafter referred to as “1996 Rules”), pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda. The petitioner is a qualified doctor possessing a Degree of M.B.B.S. And is running a Clinic called Garg Ultrasound Scan Center, Maur Mandi. On 6.5.2006, Dr. Sham Lal Thukral, Senior Medical Officer-cum-Sub District Appropriate Authority under the 1994 Act, inspected the premises of the petitioner and came to conclusion that the petitioner had not complied with the various provisions of the
January, 2007, which is substituted as follows:
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In the facts and circumstances of the case we direct that the petitioner shall be permitted to use the ultra sound
machine for conducting tests other than pre-natal sex determination test and the machine shall be unsealed for
this purpose. The petitioner shall file an undertaking to this effect within four weeks from today.
With the aforesaid direction, the special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of”. It is submitted that Sub
Divisional Appropriate Authority was creating obstructions in the operation of the machines. Criminal Misc.
No. 26849-M of 2007 And 4 Criminal Misc. No. 30442-M of 2007
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the petitioner, at first instance,
should approach the trial Court by filing an application under Section 245 Cr.P.C. for her discharge on the
ground that on the same set of allegations, petitioner has been absolved by the State Appellate Authority. This
Court has formulated the above said view as the entire proceedings and the documents attached with the
complaint are not before the Court. Therefore, the trial Court will be in a better position to come to a
conclusion as to whether the allegations levelled in the complaint and the allegations for which the licence and
registration was cancelled are akin or not. Furthermore, the trial Court, in case, comes to a conclusion that the
allegations are similar, shall also pronounce its decision as to whether the petitioner can be absolved of penal
consequences in view of the opinion formulated by the regulatory body. Needless to say that the parties will
be at liberty to assail the decision of the trial Court in the higher Court. However, till the trial concludes, the
petitioner may operate the ultrasound machine strictly in consonance with the undertaking furnished in
pursuance of the order dated 7.3.2007 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. With the observations made above,
both the petitions are disposed of.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
March 9, 2010
Indian Kanoon – http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1315081/