Dismissed

Dr Suma H M W/O Girish Patil v. the District Appropriate Authority (Daa)-P.C

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2024CRL.P/101801/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A medical practitioner sought quashing of cognizance taken against her under Section 25 of the PC & PNDT Act after an inspection found records not maintained. The High Court held that since the complaint was by a public servant acting in official duties, no supporting affidavit was needed; the petition was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dr Suma H M W/O Girish Patil Vs the District Appropriate… — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Crl. P. No.101801/2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101801 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DR. SUMA H. M. W/O. GIRISH PATIL, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: MEDICAL PRACTITIONER, R/O: SRI. NANDI HOSPITAL, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, RANEBENNUR, HAVERI DISTRICT – 581115.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHRIKANT T. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1 . THE DISTRICT APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY (DAA)-P.C AND P.N.D.T. DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICE HAVERI,

¶14

R/BY DISTRICT NODAL OFFICER AND

¶15

DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER, DR. RAGHAVENDRASWAMY H.S. - 581115.

¶16

2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICE REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 580011.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

Location: BHARATHI HIGH H M COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶19

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING THAT THE ISSUANCE OF PROCESS IN PCR NO.287/2023 (NOW CC NO.23/2024) ON THE FILE OF SECOND ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RANEBENNUR FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 25 OF PRE-CONCEPTION AND PRE-NATAL DIAGONSTIC TECHNIQUES (PROHIBITION OF SEX SELECTION) ACT 1994 BE QUASHED.

¶21

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 06.08.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

Crl. P. No.101801/2024

¶24

CAV ORDER

¶25

This petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 of Cr.PC praying to quash the issuance of process in PCR No.287/2023 (now CC No.23/2024) pending on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur, for the offences punishable under Section 25 of Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994¹ .

¶26

2. The facts in brief are that;

¶27

On 13.12.2023 the complainant and his team visited Sri. Nandi Hospital, Ranebennur and inspected it and checked the relevant registers and found that scanning centre was open along with the staff in attendance and found that,

¶28

i) Form No.B not displayed in scanning room.

¶29

ii) They have not maintained Form No.F, ANC registration book not maintained, they have not maintained cash book. They have not maintained scanning images and referral slips.

¶30

1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘PC and PNDT Act’

¶31

¶32

Crl. P. No.101801/2024

¶33

The petitioner/ accused Dr.Suma H. M who was declared as a Gynecologist by profession has provided a certificate of Government of Karnataka was in-charge of the said Hospital. Notice has been issued to the petitioner/ accused dated 31.08.2023 asking her to furnish the records. Inspite of that the petitioner/ accused has not furnished records. The complainant and other authorities have drawn Mahazar in presence of Panchas. Thereafter, the respondent has filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.PC r/w Section 28 of PC and PNDT Act.

¶34

The learned Magistrate noting that the complaint has been made in writing by a public servant acting in discharge of his official duties opined that his examination is not necessary and complainant is a District appropriate authority and considering the contravention of the provision of Section 28 of PC and PNDT Act and on perusal of the complaint and the material placed on record, has taken cognizance for offence punishable under Section 25 of PC and PNDT Act and ordered to register a criminal case against the petitioner. Pursuant to the said order CC No.23/2024 has been registered against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order of taking cognizance and registration of a criminal case, the petitioner

¶35

¶36

Crl. P. No.101801/2024

¶37

has filed this petition seeking quashing of the order of issuance of process and registration of the criminal case.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/ State.

¶39

The learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the private complaint has not been enclosed with the affidavit of the applicant. He placed reliance on the case of Priyanka Srivastava and Others Vs. State of U.P and Others² and contended that filing of affidavit is necessary and essential and as the affidavit is not enclosed with the private complaint, the proceedings are required to be quashed. He contends that the petitioner has produced all the documents and she has furnished them to the complainant and his team at the time of inspection, inspite of it, a false complaint has been registered against the petitioner. On these grounds he prayed for quashing of the proceedings registered against the petitioner.

¶40

Per Contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the complainant is an appropriate authority and he and his team on inspection of the Hospital of the

¶41

2 AIR 2015 SC 1758

¶42

¶43

Crl. P. No.101801/2024

¶44

petitioner/ accused had found contravention of provisions of Section 29 of the Act and accordingly, the complainant has filed a complaint. So the complainant is a public servant and he made a complaint in writing in discharge of his official duties. There is no prayer for referring the complaint to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC and therefore, there is no necessity of any affidavit of the complainant along with the private complaint. She contends that a complaint has to be filed by the appropriate authority and only on that complaint, the Court has to take cognizance of an offence under the PC and PNDT Act and it is provided under PC and PNDT Act. On these grounds she prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶45

Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has

¶46

perused the impugned order of taking cognizance and the materials placed on record.

¶47

The complainant and his team on inspecting the Hospital of petitioner/ accused found not maintained records as per PC and PNDT Act and rules and it is an offence under Section 25 of PC and PNDT Act, a notice has been issued to the petitioner/ accused dated 31.08.2023 i.e., the date of

¶48

¶49

Crl. P. No.101801/2024

¶50

inspection, asking the petitioner/ accused to furnish the records and as the petitioner/ accused has failed to produce the said

¶51

records sought for in the notice, the complainant appropriate authority has filed a complaint.

¶52

10. Section 28 of PC and PNDT Act reads thus;

¶53

“28. Cognizance of offences.-(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a complaint made by-

¶54

(a) the Appropriate Authority concerned, or any officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be, or the Appropriate Authority; or

¶55

(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.

¶56

Explanation.- For the purpose of this clause, "person" includes a social organisation.

¶57

(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.

¶58

(3) Where a complaint has been made under clause (b) of sub-section (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.”

¶59

11. It provides for filing of a complaint. The complaint

¶60

has been defined under Section 2(d) of Cr.PC. Section 2(d) of

¶61

Cr.PC reads thus:

¶62

“2. Definitions.- in this Code, unless the context otherwise requires,-

¶63

¶64

Crl. P. No.101801/2024

¶65

d. “Compliant” means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.”

¶66

In view of the said provision in Section 28 of PC and PNDT Act, the complainant has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.PC r/w Section 28 of PC and PNDT Act. In view of the above, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent along with his complaint has not filed an affidavit stating the efforts made by him to file complaint to the Police is not tenable. Even though, in the case of Priyanka Srivastava supra the Hon’ble Apex Court held that an affidavit has to be filed in private complaint along with application under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC. The said decision is not applicable to the case on hand as the complaint is filed by a public servant acting and in discharge of his official duties in terms of Section 28 of the PC and PNDT Act.

¶67

The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner has possessed all the documents required to be maintained but, he has not produced any such documents before this Court. Considering all these aspects, the Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Section 25 of

¶68

¶69

Crl. P. No.101801/2024

¶70

PC and PNDT Act against the petitioner/ accused in accordance with law. There are no grounds for quashing of order taking cognizance and issuance of process against the petitioner/

¶71

accused. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

¶72

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶73

PJ CT:ANB

Dr Suma H M W/O Girish Patil v. the District Appropriate Authority (Daa)-P.C

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dr Suma H M W/O Girish Patil v. the District Appropriate Authority (Daa)-P.C

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sakrappa S/O. Yamanappa Valmiki Vs the State of Karnataka

The National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Kotresh S/O Malkappa Horiholi

Kasturi W/O Ashok @ Ashokumar Hiremath Vs Siddappa S/O Ningappa Gaddad

Saleem S/O Maktumsab Megalamani Alias Myagalmani Vs the State of Karnataka

Anita W/O. Sachin Bhopale Vs the State of Karnataka

Girish S/O Doddabasappa Tatti Vs State by Raibag Police Station