Dismissed

Dr. Jaishree Mbbs dmrd, v. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Depat. Of Health, Govt. Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC11 Aug 2016CR. MISC./26621/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the order of cognizance against a sonologist accused of violating the PCDT Act. The petitioner argued that alleged violations of Rule 3(3) on jurisdiction and a mistake regarding signature on a blank Form-F did not constitute an offence.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dr. Jaishree Mbbs dmrd, Vs The State Of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.26621 of 2013

¶2

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -42 Year- 2013 Thana -VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE DistrictVAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== Dr. Jaishree, MBBS (DMRD), W/O Dr. S.K. Mishra, R/O- Patel Nagar, (Nala Par), Town and District- Patna .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Department of Health Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Civil Surgeon- cum- Chief Medical Officer- cum- the Appropriate Authority Under P.C. and P.N.D.T. Act, 1994 at Hajipur, District- Vaishali. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Avanindra Kumar Jha, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. P.N.Shahi, AAG-6 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶3

8 11-08-2016 Heard Sri Avanindra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.N.Shahi, Learned Addl. Advocate General no.6. The sole petitioner has approached this Court, invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash an order dated 10.05.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur, District-Vaishali in official Complaint Case no.C2 42/2013. By the said order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under the provisions of PreConception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “1994 Act”).

¶4

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26621 of 2013 (8) dt.11-08-2016

¶5

2/4

¶6

Short fact of the case is that the Civil Surgeon-cumChief Medical Officer-cum- competent authority conducted an inspection in two ultrasound Centers. It was found during enquiry that the petitioner was functioning as Sonologist. She was working in two ultrasound centers. It was alleged in the complaint petition that without intimation, besides two ultrasound centers in the district of Vaishali, the petitioner was also functioning in other ultrasound centers situated in other district. It was also alleged that in the center, certain Form-„F‟ were found. In some blank Form„F‟, signature of the petitioner was available. On the ground that offences were committed under the 1994 Act, an official complaint was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by the impugned order has taken cognizance of offence under the 1994 Act. The said order has been assailed in the present petition.

¶7

It was submitted by Sri Avanindra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner that so far as allegation regarding functioning in more than two ultrasound centers is concerned, in view of Rule-3(3) of Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules,1996 (hereinafter referred to as “1996 Rules”), no offence is made out.

¶8

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26621 of 2013 (8) dt.11-08-2016

¶9

3/4

¶10

He highlights that the restriction of function in two ultrasound centers is only in respect of one district not beyond that. Regarding signature of the petitioner on blank Form-F is concerned, it has been argued that it was only a mistake on the part of the petitioner and, as such, the petitioner may not be proceeded under the provisions of the Act or Rules. He has also referred to Annexure-10 to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner i.e. a photo copy of the order dated 17^th August, 2015 passed in Crl. Writ Petition no.4194 of 2014 by the Bombay High Court. He tried to persuade the Court that in view of Judgment of Bombay High Court, merely putting signature on blank Form-„F‟ does not constitute any offence, particularly in view of the fact that it was only a mistake on the part of the petitioner. He further submits that over Form-„F‟, details are to be given by the concerned clerk. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also tried to persuade the Court to look into the investigation report and explanation, which have been brought on record as Annexures-2 and 3 to the present petition, whereby show cause notice was issued to the proprietor of the ultrasound centre and on the basis of explanation, the owner of the said ultrasound has been exonerated. On the aforesaid ground, a prayer has been made for quashing the order of cognizance.

¶11

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26621 of 2013 (8) dt.11-08-2016

¶12

4/4

¶13

Sri P.N.Shahi, learned Addl. Advocate General no.6

¶14

has not disputed the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of application of Rule-3(3) of 1996 Rules. However, he highlights the allegation made in the complaint petition so far as Form-„F‟ is concerned. He submits that it is true that such Form is required to be filled up by the concerned clerk, even in that event signature was to be put up by the petitioner after the Form was filled up. Recovery of blank Form-F, on which signature of petitioner was found, suggests regarding commission of offence under Rule 13 of 1996 Rules.

¶15

Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. In view of allegation made at page-2 para-3 of the complaint petition, the Court is of the opinion that while passing order of cognizance on official complaint, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has committed no error. So far examination of Annexure-2 to the petition is concerned, such thing may not be examined at this preliminary stage. The petitioner would be at liberty to raise such points before the court below at the appropriate stage.

¶16

The petition stands dismissed.

¶17

NKS/U

¶18

(Rakesh Kumar, J)

Dr. Jaishree Mbbs dmrd, v. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Depat. Of Health, Govt. Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dr. Jaishree Mbbs dmrd, v. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Depat. Of Health, Govt. Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gagandeo Rai Vs The State Of Bihar

Satya Narayan Prasad Sinha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Arun Kumar Tiwary Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Bachan Rai @ Ram Bachchan Ray @ Bachandeo Rai Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Bishnu Swarup Ray Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Gokul Prasad Yadav Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.