Allowed

Dr Darshan a v. Vs State of Karnataka Health and Family Welfare Department

Karnataka HC2 Apr 2024WP/9854/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought quashing of criminal proceedings under the PCPNDT Act initiated against a medical officer for alleged negligence in record maintenance. The High Court relied on a coordinate bench and allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings due to the respondent's lack of jurisdiction at the time of initiation while directing release of the seized machine.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in CC No.3015/2022 quashed; machine released to petitioner subject to undertaking for record maintenance.

Dr Darshan a v Vs State of Karnataka Health and Family… — Medical Negligence | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:13528 WP No. 9854 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 9854 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

DR. DARSHAN A.V., SON OF VISHWANATH NADIG, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, SPECIALIST MEDICAL OFFICER, RADIOLOGIST, MCH SIRA (AS SHOWN IN PCR), RESIDING AT AMRUTH 2^ND CROSS, 2^ND MAIN, SAPTHAGIRI EXTENSION, SOMESHWARAPURAM, TUMKUR - 572 102.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. RAGHU. O.K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABHISHEK K.,)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶12

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DC OFFICE, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, TUMKURU - 571 101.

¶13

DR. D.N. MANJUNATH, DISTRICT NODAL OFFICER AND DISTRICT, FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER, DISTRICT APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY UNDER P C AND P.N.D.T. ACT, HAVING OFFICE AT OLD N.H. ROAD,

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:13528 WP No. 9854 of 2024

¶15

IN FRONT OF AMANIKERE PARK, TUMKURU - 572 101.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT/STATE)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 3015/2022 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 23, 23(1), 23(2), 20(1), 20(2) OF PNDT (PROHIBITION OF SEX SELECTION) ACT, 1994 PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PAVAGADA AT ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH ALL PROCEEDINGS IN P.C.R. NO. 77/2022 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 23, 23(1), 23(2), 20(1), 20(2) OF PNDT (PROHIBITION OF SEX SELECTION) ACT, 1994 PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PAVAGADA AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The respondent No.3 field a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C stating that accused No.1 who is the doctor running the hospital and accused No.2 who is the friend of accused No.1, were not maintaining the records pertaining to the scanning for pregnant woman. The learned Magistrate, after perusing the complaint, took the cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 23, 23(1), 23(2), 20(1), 20(2), 20(3) of Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of (Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (for short `Act').

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:13528 WP No. 9854 of 2024

¶25

The issue involved in this petition was examined by the coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.3016/2023 (DD 16.6.2023) and this Court at para-10 held as follows:

¶26

A perusal of the records would indicate that the Authority who has instituted the proceedings did not have the power to do so as on the date of such initiation. Power necessary to initiate such proceedings was delegated to him only for a specified period between 17.10.2022 to 19.10.2022. Therefore, the respondent did not have power to initiate the proceedings on the day that it is initiated. The petition deserves to succeed on the said ground of lack of competence. This would not mean that proceedings cannot be initiated against the petitioner, if the delegation has been extended beyond the said period and the power to initiate proceedings is available at this juncture.

¶27

Therefore, this writ petition also requires to be disposed of in light of the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.3016/2023. Accordingly, I pass the

¶28

following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶31

ii) The impugned proceeding in CC No.3015/2022 pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Pavagada, stands quashed.

¶32

iii) Liberty is reserved to the State to initiate proceeding in accordance with law. The respondent No.3 is directed to release the machine to the office of the petitioner subject to undertaking in the affidavit that he would maintain the records

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:13528 WP No. 9854 of 2024

¶35

inconformity with the provisions contained under the Act.

¶36

iv) The petitioner has filed an affidavit undertaking that he would maintain the records as required under the provisions of the Act.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

PNV - List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15