Dr. Hardeep Singh and another vs State of Haryana and another


In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M-4211 of 2014
Date of decision:5.8.2014
Dr. Hardeep Singh and another
State of Haryana and another
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
Present: Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harjinder Singh
Mavi, advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Subhash Godara, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
for the respondent-State assisted by ASI Deep Chand and
Deputy Civil Surgeon-cum-Nodal Officer, PNDT Act.
Inderjit Singh, J.
Dr. Hardeep Singh and Dr. Prabhjot Kaur-petitioners have
filed this petition against the State of Haryana and District Appropriate
Authority (PC & PNDT)-cum-Civil Surgeon, Karnal under Section 482
Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.53 dated 20.1.2014 (Annexure-P.1)
registered for the offences under Sections 4, 5, 6, 9(4), 9(6) of the PreConception
and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex
Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the PNDT Act’) at Police
Station Karnal Civil Lines, District Karnal and all the consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, being the abuse of the process of law as in
identical cases, where without issuing show cause notice, instead of filing
Cr. Misc. No.M-4211 of 2014
a complaint before the competent Court of law, FIR is registered
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners
has mainly argued that in this case FIR cannot be lodged and only
complaint can be filed. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon
the decisions of this Court in Neelam v. State of Haryana, Criminal Misc.
No.M-36818 of 2011 (decided on 23.2.2012); Amit v. State of Haryana
and Civil Surgeon, Karnal), Criminal Misc. No.M-30062 of 2011 (decided
on 21.11.2011) and Dr. Brij Sharma v. State of Haryana and Civil
Surgeon, Karnal, Criminal Misc. No.M-22823 of 2009 (decided on
I have gone through the judgments and also the provisions of
the PNDT Act. As per Section 27 of this Act, every offence under this Act
shall be cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable. As per the
definition given in the gazettee notification dated 24.2.2014, and in the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, cognizable offence means an offence for
which, and cognizable case means a case in which, a Police Officer may in
accordance with the Ist Schedule or under any law for the time being in
force arrest without warrant. Section 28 of the PNDT Act provides as
“28. Cognizance of offences. (1) No court shall take
cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a
complaint made by– (a) the Appropriate Authority concerned,
or any officer authorised in this behalf by the Central
Cr. Misc. No.M-4211 of 2014
Government or State Government, as the case may be, or the
Appropriate Authority; or (b) a person who has given notice
of not less than fifteen days in the manner prescribed, to the
Appropriate Authority, of the alleged offence and of his
intention to make a complaint to the court.
Explanation.–For the purpose of this clause, “person”
includes a social organisation.
(2) No court other than that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a
Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence
punishable under this Act.
(3) Where a complaint has been made under clause (b) of subsection
(1), the court may, on demand by such person, direct
the Appropriate Authority to make available copies of the
relevant records in its possession to such person.”
Keeping in view the two sections one saying the offences under the
Act are cognizable and the other saying cognizance of offence can be
taken on the complaint made by the Appropriate Authority requires the
determination on legal points from a larger Bench:-
(1) Whether FIR for the offences committed under this Act
can be registered on the complaint of Appropriate Authority
and can be investigated by the Police?
(2) Whether the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. along
with the complaint of an Appropriate Authority can be filed to
the Court?
Cr. Misc. No.M-4211 of 2014
(3) Whether no FIR can be lodged nor the offences can be
investigated by the Police and only complaint by the
Appropriate Authority directly to the Court lies?
In view of the above, this case be put up before the Hon’ble Chief
Justice for appropriate orders.
August 5, 2014. (Inderjit Singh)


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