Rahul Bhati and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

Rahul Bhati and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application u/s 528 BNSS allowed; entire proceeding of Case no. 1233 of 2025 (State vs. Dr. Riya and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 1036 of 2024, PS- Baghpat, District Baghpat, along with charge sheet no. 80 of 2025 dated 14.02.2025 and the summoning order dated 17.02.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, quashed qua the applicants; competent authority may re-initiate the matter under the Act of 1994 procedure if required.

Issue for consideration

Whether, per Section 28 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994, cognizance of the offences under that Act can be taken except upon a complaint by the competent authority, i.e. whether FIR-based proceedings (charge sheet and summoning order) against the applicants for Case Crime no. 1036 of 2024 can stand. +1 more

Court's answer

The mandate of Section 28 of the 1994 Act is that, for offences mentioned under that Act, only a complaint can be preferred by the competent authority; since in the present case an FIR was lodged instead of such a complaint, the proceedings against the applicants run contrary to that mandate.

Ratio / Principle

The applicants' case is squarely covered by the order dated 15.05.2025 passed in Application u/s 528 BNSS No. 11599 of 2025 (Praveen Kumar and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and another), and parity of that judgment and order is applicable in favour of the applicants.

Key takeaways

On the strength of that parity, the entire proceeding of Case no. 1233 of 2025 (State vs. Dr. Riya and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 1036 of 2024, along with charge sheet no. 80 of 2025 dated 14.02.2025 and the summoning order dated 17.02.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, are quashed qua the applicants.ratio¶¶17
Clarification appended to the quashing: the competent authority may re-initiate the matter, if so required, in strict consonance with the procedure defined under the Act of 1994.obiter¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.), September 25, 2025 - APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. 37644 of 2025 (Rahul Bhati And Another v. State of U.P. and Another): Allowed. The entire proceeding of Case no. 1233 of 2025 (State vs. Dr. Riya and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 1036 of 2024 (PS- Baghpat, District Baghpat) under sections 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 4, 5(1)A, 5(1)B, 5(1)C, 5(2), 6B, 29, 23, 25 Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act and 318(4), 61(2) BNS, along with charge sheet no. 80 of 2025 dated 14.02.2025 and the summoning order dated 17.02.2025 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, were quashed qua the applicants. Ground: under Section 28 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994, no court can take cognizance of the offences under that Act except upon a complaint by the competent authority, whereas an FIR had been lodged; the case is squarely covered by, and parity was drawn with, the order dated 15.05.2025 in Application u/s 528 BNSS No. 11599 of 2025 (Praveen Kumar and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and another). Caveat: the competent authority may re-initiate the matter in accordance with the procedure of the 1994 Act if required.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37644 of 2025

Rahul Bhati And Another

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Satyendra Narayan Singh,	Vikas Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 77

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Sri Vikas Singh, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for State.

2. Present application has been preferred with the following prayers:-

"...quash the entire proceeding of Case no. 1233 of 2025 (State vs. Dr. Riya and others), arising out of Case Crime no. 1036 of 2024 under sections 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 4, 5(1)A, 5(1)B, 5(1)C, 5(2), 6B, 29, 23, 25 PreConception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act and 318(4), 61(2) BNS, PS- Baghpat, District Baghpat in charge sheet no. 80 of 2025 dated 14.02.2025 pending in court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat and quash the summoning order dated 17.02.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat."

At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants has submitted that in an identical matter, co-accused Praveen Kumar and 2 others preferred Application u/s 528 BNSS No. 11599 of 2025 (Praveen Kumar and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and another) before this Court seeking the same prayer as sought through the instant application on the ground that as per Section 28 of Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994, for the offences mentioned under the said Act, no court can take cognizance except upon complaint. In Application u/s 528 BNSS no. 11599 of 2025 (Praveen Kumar and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and another) pleadings were entertained by this Court and after due consideration, judgment and order dated 15.05.2025 was passed by this Court whereby entire proceeding has been quashed and set aside. It is submitted that instant application has been preferred at the behest of applicants who are also implicated in the same

NA528 No. 37644 of 2025

2

proceeding and the similar argument has been raised by learned counsel for applicants for challenging the said proceedings.

Although, learned AGA has opposed the prayer sought through instant application but did not dispute the order dated 15.05.2025.

5.After having the submissions extended by learned counsel for applicants and perusing the records along with order dated 15.05.2025, it transpires that once the mandate of provisions contained under Section 28 of Special Act of 1994 shows that in case of offence mentioned under the Act of 1994, only a compliant can be preferred by the competent authority but in the present case, FIR has been lodged, and as such, applicants' case is squarely covered with the order dated 15.05.2025 passed in case of Praveen Kumar (supra).

In view of the foregoing discussions, parity of judgment and order dated 15.05.2025 is applicable in favour of applicants and as such, entire proceeding of Case no. 1233 of 2025 (State vs. Dr. Riya and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 1036 of 2024 under sections 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 4, 5(1)A, 5(1)B, 5(1)C, 5(2), 6B, 29, 23, 25 Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act and 318(4), 61(2) BNS, PS- Baghpat, District Baghpat along with charge sheet no. 80 of 2025 dated 14.02.2025 and summoning order dated 17.02.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, are hereby quashed qua applicants herein.

However, it is made clear that the competent authority may re-initiate the matter in strict consonance of the procedure as defined under the Act of 1994, if so required.

The instant application u/s 528 BNSS stands allowed accordingly

September 25, 2025 Vivek Kr.

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad