IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.
State of Raj. & Anr.
S. B. Cr. MISC. PETITION NO. 3755/2014.
Under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR
No. 2/2014 registered at Police Station
P.C.P.N.D.T., Bureau of Investigation Distt.
Jaipur for offence under Sections 4(3), 5(2), 6
and 23 of PCPNDT Act, 1994 read with rules 9(1)
(4)(6)(7)(8), 17(1) (2) and 18 of the PCPNDT
Date of Order : 26h
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA
Mr Amit Jindal, for petitioner.
Mr Jitendra Shrimalee, Public Prosecutor.
BY THE COURT
This Misc. Petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C
has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 2/2014 registered
at Police Station P.C.P.N.D.T., Bureau of Investigation
Distt. Jaipur for offence under Sections 4(3), 5(2), 6 and
23 of PCPNDT Act, 1994 read with rules 9(1)(4)(6)(7)(8),
17(1) (2) and 18 of the PCPNDT Rules, 1996.
2. The contention in the petition are that
complainant respondent Deputy Director (RCH) Medical
and Health Department lodged an FIR No. 2/2014 against
the petitioner and other accused persons for conducting
pre-natal diagnosis techniques for sex selection at Indu
Ultrasound Scan Center, Singhana Distt. Jhunjhunu.
During investigation it has come on record that
sonography machine has been purchased by the accused
persons from the petitioner firm on which notice under
Section 91 Cr.P.C has been issued to the petitioner. He
replied to the notice on 28.8.2014 in spite of this, the
police is investigating the matter against the petitioner.
The petitioner is not connected with the offence in any
way. He has complied with the provisions of Rule 3-A of
the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques
(Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (in short Rules
of 1996) and he has sold the sonography machine to the
Ajanta Ultrasound Scan Center who is registered under
the Act and list has also been sent as provided under
Section 3-A sub-clause (2) of the Rules of 1996 hence he
has not committed any offence.
Per contra, the contention of the Public
Prosecutor is that this petition is misconceived as only
notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C has been issued and
without complying with the notice, this petition has been
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the
impugned FIR as well as the documents available on
4. The admitted case of the petitioner is that on
25.8.2014 a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C has been
issued to him and he has been asked to furnish documents
as regards the purchase of sonography machine. On
28.8.2014, the reply has been sent but no documents
have been produced. Again on 8.9.2014, it has been
made clear by the Investigating Officer that documents as
regards purchase of the sonography machine should be
submitted but without complying with the notice dated
8.9.2014, the petitioner has rushed to this Court without
any reason. Section 91 Cr.P.C clearly gives power to
Investigating Officer to issue order for production of any
document which in his opinion is necessary or even
desirable for the purpose of any investigation. Here in the
present case, the Investigating Officer has only asked the
petitioner for production of documents of the purchase of
two sonography machines but without complying with the
notice, this petition has been filed which is devoid of
5. The other contention of the petitioner is that he
has complied with Rules 3-A and sub-clause (2) of the
Rules 1996. That may be the case but inspite of this, the
Investigating Officer is within his jurisdiction to call for the
record under Section 91 Cr.P.C and powers of the
Investigating Officer are not subject to Rule 3-A or 3-A
sub-clause (2) of the Rules, hence contention of the
petitioner is not acceptable and petition is devoid of merit
and liable to be dismissed. Hence dismissed.
All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been
incorporated in the judgment/ order being e-mailed.
Sr. Personal Assistant.