Sukhjinder Kaur and another vs State of Punjab and another

CRM-M_29814_2013_06_10_2014_FINAL_ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-29814 of of 2013 (O/M)
Date of Decision : 6.10.2014
Sukhjinder Kaur and another ………. Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ……. Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH
Present:- Mr. Mukand Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Ashish Sanghi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab,
for respondent No. 1-State.
Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
Mr. D.S. Malwai, Advocate, for the applicant in
CRM No. 6772 of 2014.
KULDIP SINGH, J. (ORAL)
Petitioners Sukhjinder Kaur and Sukhpal Kaur have filed
this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated
24.9.2012 (Annexure-P-3), passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda, vide which the present petitioners
were summoned under Section 190(1) Cr.P.C. in the case titled
State Versus Dr. Sham Lal, pertaining to FIR No. 425 dated
5.8.2006 registered under Sections 4, 5, 6, 23 and 29 of the Preconception
and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex
Selection) Act, 1994, under Sections 4 and 5 of the Medical
Termination of Pregnancy Act, 2002 and under Sections 313 and
315 IPC at Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda, on the basis of an
application moved by one Social Worker Gurpreet Singh Gora. Also
CRM No. M-29814 of of 2013 (O/M) -2-
impugned is the order dated 23.8.2013 (Annexure-P-5), passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide which the revision of
the petitioners against the said summoning order was dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
Deputy Advocate General for the State, learned counsel for
respondent No. 2 (complainant) and have also carefully gone
through the file.
First of all, a legal point has been raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that a Social Worker cannot move an
application. However, explanation of Section 28(1) of the Preconception
and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex
Selection) Act, 1994 (in short ‘the Act’) lays down that the word
“person” includes a social organization. Therefore, application on
behalf of a social worker is maintainable as the case is under the
Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of
Sex Selection) Act, 1994, under which the petitioners have been
summoned.
Briefly stated, the case was registered against Dr.
Ramesh Rani Thukral and Dr. Sham Lal Thukral on 5.8.2006, on the
statement made by Dr. Dalip Kumar, Civil Surgeon/Appropriate
Authority, Bathinda to the effect that he has received a secret
information that an abortion is to be performed in Thukral Surgical
Maternity Hospital, Bathinda after conducting an ultra sound test
upon a lady by said Dr. Ramesh Rani Thukral and her husband Dr.
CRM No. M-29814 of of 2013 (O/M) -3-
Sham Lal Thukral. Thereafter, Dr. Dalip Kumar alongwith Sadhu
Ram, Project Officer and another doctor, namely, Dr. Dheera Gupta
raided the said Maternity Hospital and found that Sukhpal Kaur and
Sukhjinder Kaur were present in a room in the rear side of the
hospital. Sukhpal Kaur disclosed to Dr. Dalip Kumar that on
4.8.2006, an ultra sound scan was performed on her pregnant
sister-in-law Sukhjinder Kaur and sex of the foetus was found to be
female. She further disclosed to Dr. Dalip Kumar that they have
come to the hospital for abortion alongwith Kanwaljit Singh husband
of Sukhjinder Kaur and one Anil Garg. She further disclosed that Dr.
Ramesh Rani Thukral inserted one tablet inside the uterus of
Sukhjinder Kaur and told them that the abortion would be carried
out at late night around 10-11 PM. Sukhjinder Kaur was medically
examined by Dr. Dheera Gupta at Civil Hospital, Bathinda and a
tablet was extracted from her uterus. The pregnancy was
determined of 14/16 weeks and the foetus was found to be female.
Thukral Surgical Maternity Hospital was competent to conduct
medical termination in case of pregnancy upto 12 weeks only.
In the challan presented in the Court of the learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda, petitioners alongwith
Kanwaljit Singh and Anil Garg were made prosecution witnesses.
However, when an application was filed by a social worker Gurpreet
Singh Gora, the present petitioners were summoned as additional
accused, vide impugned order dated 24.9.2012 (Annexure-P-3).
CRM No. M-29814 of of 2013 (O/M) -4-
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the
petitioners were prosecution witnesses. The learned Magistrate had
relied upon the statements of the petitioners recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that, while
passing the order, the entire file was considered by the learned
Magistrate as well as by the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda.
The statements made to the head of the raiding party Dr. Dalip
Kumar were also considered. Dr. Dalip Kumar alongwith Dr. Dheera
Gupta and Sadhu Ram, Project Officer are the witnesses of the
statement made by Sukhpal Kaur to Dr. Dalip Kumar, on the basis
of which, the crime was detected. It further comes out that it was
found that Sukhjinder Kaur had voluntarily undergone abortion of
female foetus in the Thukral Surgical Maternity Hospital, Bathinda.
The foetus died in the uterus and an anti-mortem mark of injury was
found on the neck of the dead foetus. The learned Magistrate as
well as the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda, have passed the well
reasoned orders.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that in
this case, limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. is three years and
that the FIR was registered in the year 2006 and the impugned
order dated 24.9.2012 (Annexure-P-3) was passed by the learned
Magistrate in the year 2012. Therefore, offence is barred by
limitation. I am of the view that once the challan is presented and
CRM No. M-29814 of of 2013 (O/M) -5-
the Court takes cognizance, the limitation will not run for passing
the order under Section 190 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued
that the process of court is being misused as the present petition
has been filed by a social worker at the instance of Dr. Sham Lal
Thukral. I am of the view that there is no evidence in support of the
allegations levelled above. The petitioners Sukhpal Kaur and
Sukhjinder Kaur were found present in the said hospital of Dr.
Ramesh Rani Thukral and Dr. Sham Lal Thukral where the abortion
was to be carried out. A dead foetus with an injury on the neck was
found when one of the member of the raiding party Dr. Dheera
Gupta conducted examination of Sukhjinder Kaur in Civil Hospital,
Bathinda. The mere fact that the petitioners were witnesses, is no
ground to hold that the order is illegal.
After going through the file, I do not find any illegality or
perversity in the impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate
as well as the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda. Consequently,
the present petition is dismissed.
CRM No. 6772 of 2014
In view of the order passed above, application to make
Dr. Sham Lal Thukral as party is dismissed as infrucutous.
(KULDIP SINGH)
JUDGE
6.10.2014
sjks

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