Court No. – 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. – 10285 of 2015
Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Naveen Kumar Rai,Adarsh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate
Hon’ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon’ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. and
perused the records.
The petitioner has come up praying that a certiorari be issued to quash the
F.I.R. dated 27.2.2015 at Case Crime No. 75 of 2015, under Sections 420
I.P.C. and 3/22, 3/23 of Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques
(Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, Police Station Gangoh, District
We had asked the learned A.G.A. to obtain instructions by the order dated
30.4.2015. An affidavit of Sri Arvind Kumar, Sub Inspector, Police Station
Gangoh, Saharanpur has been filed today by the learned A.G.A. In paragraph
5 of the said affidavit, certain allegations have been made and also a report
has been annexed which is annexure – 1 to the said affidavit filed on behalf of
the respondents. The affidavit resides the name of the petitioner and his wife
Smt. Geeta Singh indicating that they were also dealing in the said hospital.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, on mere such
dealing as owner of hospital, cannot be prosecuted for any such alleged
offence. He has relied upon Section 23 of Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal
Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. Section
23(1) is extracted hereunder :
“23(1) Any medical geneticist, gynecologist,
registered medical practitioner or any person who
owns a Genetic Counseling Centre, a Genetic
Laboratory or a Genetic Clinic or is employed in
such a Centre, Laboratory or Clinic and renders his
professional or technical services to or at such a
Centre, Laboratory or Clinic, whether on an honorary
basis of otherwise, and who contravenes any of the
provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three years and with fine which
may extend to ten thousand rupees and on any
subsequent conviction, with imprisonment which may
extend to five years and with fine which may extend
to fifty thousand rupees.”
A perusal thereof leaves no room for doubt that any person who owns Genetic
Counselling Centre is also liable for the offences under the said Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that hospital of the petitioner is not
a Genetic Counselling Centre indulging into any such activity as alleged in
the F.I.R. nor the petitioner was indulging in any such activity as indicated in
the F.I.R. Mere dealing with business does not amount indulgence in such
activity so as to make the petitioner an accused.
Whether the petitioner is indulging into such activity or not is subject matter
of collection of evidence but the allegations are categorically to the effect that
the petitioner is owner of the hospital. Perusal of Section 23 (1) clearly
indicates that the owner is also liable for the offences indicated therein.
Consequently no case for quashing of the F.I.R. is made out.
It is open for the petitioner to seek his remedy by way of bail before the court
below in accordance with law.
The petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.
Order Date :- 13.5.2015
Court No. – 42