Ujjagar Singh Suri vs State Of Punjab And Others on 16 February, 2009

Criminal Misc. No. M-18044 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Misc. No. M-18044 of 2008

Date of Decision: 16.2.2009

Ujjagar Singh Suri

Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and Others

Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: R.S. Bains, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Deputy Advocate

General, Punjab, for the respondents.

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

Petitioner Ujjagar Singh Suri is running a hospital unde the name & style of Suri Hospital, Bhaddi Road, Balachaur. A complaint under Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “1994 Act”) and the rules framed thereunder in 1996 and subsequently amended in 2003 was filed against the petitioner in the Court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balachaur. During the pendency of the complaint, Sub Divisional Operative Authority-cum-Senior Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Balachaur had sealed the Scan Center run by the Petitioner under Section 23 of 1994 Act read with Sub Rules 2 & 3 by passing order Criminal Misc. No. M-18044 of 2008 2 Annexure P1/T on 27.10.2005. The order mentioned that Court case is going against the petitioner. It is stated that petitioner was acquitted in the complaint case.

In case any person is running a Scan Center without having a registration as envisaged under Section 3 of the 1994 Act to what extent the Authorities can act against him? Is a question poised before me. A simple answer to the same is that if appropriate authority pass an order whether same is appealable or not or whether the order has been passed without jurisdiction or not cannot be entertained in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Merely because pendency of a criminal case was one ground mentioned in the order will not vest any jurisdiction in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Faced with this, counsel has stated that two more FIRs were registered against the petitioner bearing No. 58 dated 23.2.2006 (Annexure P4) under Sections 4/5 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and FIR No. 59 dated 23.2.2006 under Section 15 of Indian Medical Council Act. Counsel for the petitioner states that thereafter Operation Theater and Labour Room were sealed under these two FIRs. There is no document to show that this action was taken by the Authorities in the garb of two FIRS. Order (Annexure P1) passed by the Sub Divisional Operative Authority-cum-Senior Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Balachaur, on 27.10.2005 stand and it has not been annulled, rescinded or quashed. Therefore, it cannot be said that the premises were sealed in pursuance of these two FIRs. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Annexure P8 whereby an application was filed by the petitioner in the Court of Sub Criminal Misc. No. M-18044 of 2008 3 Divisional Judicial Magistrate that a direction be given to the Station House Officer, Police Station Balachaur/Sub Divisional Operative Authority-cum-Senior Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Balachaur to remove the seals from Operation Theater and Labour Room of Suri Hospital, Balachaur, has been declined. The application was declined by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balachaur, on the following ground:-

“5. It is pertinent to mention here that a case under are accepted at this stage and Operation Theater/Labour Room is ordered to be opened, there is every likelihood of him repeating the same offence again and frustrating the very purpose of noble Act enunciated by Legislature to control decreasing ratio of female population in the Country. There is no prohibition to seal operation theater and labour room under rules and this part of premises of hospital of applicant/accused is covered by definition of “material object”. Without recording evidence, it cannot be determined as to whether allegations of prosecution are sustainable or accused/applicant is on true footings and it will be very pre-mature to allow this application at this stage. Hence, application is rejected”.

Under which provision of law, this application was maintainable has not been stated before me. The premises were not sealed as a case property. Therefore, petitioner has an adequate Criminal Misc. No. M-18044 of 2008 4 remedy under the 1994 Act to approach the Appropriate Authority or to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court. Until and unless it is shown that the premises were sealed by the orders passed by any Authority under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy me that the order has been passed by invoking Chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure or in relation to a criminal case. Hence, the present petition, being not maintainable, is dismissed.

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)

Judge

February 16, 2009

“DK”

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s