Allowed

K. Jitender Reddy, Hyd and 2 Othrs v. District Medical and Health Officer, Sec-Bad and Anr.

Telangana HC17 Feb 2022CRLP/15649/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed criminal petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings under the PNDT Act. The court held that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated without a proper investigation by the Appropriate Authority and without prima-facie proof against the accused employees.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 1783 of 2014 against the petitioners in Criminal Petitions Nos. 15649 and 15793 of 2014 are quashed and miscellaneous applications are closed.

K. Jitender Reddy, Hyd and 2 Othrs Vs District Medical… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.15649 and 1579 3 ott 2014

¶6

Between:

¶7

K. Jitender Reddy, S/o Late K. Jitender Reddy S/o K. Pulla Reddy, aged 52 years

¶8

Dr. Sreekanth Dakaraju P., S/o Pagadala Dakaraju, aged 47 years, 3. Dr. Balaji Patel Kola, S/o Kola Rajaiah Aged about 36 years (Petitioners all working at Apollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd., Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad)

¶9

...PET|T|ONERS

¶10

AND

¶11

District Medical and Health Officer:, D/o K. Narendrudu, S/o K. Vasundaram Chetty, Aged 59 years, Occ: DMHO, O/o 4th Floor, NTPC Building, Secunderabad

¶12

State Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad

¶13

..,RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Section 482 oI Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in CC No. 1783 of 2014, on the file of learned lll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶15

CRLPMP. NO: 16719 OF 2014

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceddings, including the presence of the petitioners, pursuant to CC No. 1783 of 2014, on the file of learned lll Additional Chief ltr'letropolitan IVIagistrate, Hyderabad is granted the petitioners would suffer irretrievable loss and inquiry, pending disposal of the petition.

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the [,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M/s lndus

¶18

Law Firm, Advocate for the petitioner and the pubric prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent Nosl & 2.

¶19

CRIMINAL PETI TION N O: 15793 OF 2014

¶20

Between:

¶21

Dr. Archana Reddy Datta, D/o, Late. Dr.Datta Linganna Reddy, aged 41 years,

¶22

2 Dr. G. Kavita, D/o. Veera Reddy G.S.p., aged 40 years, 3 Dr. Atluri Ne_eraja DJo. A.Shivaji, aged 37 y"ears, '--

¶23

4E Dr. Nagam Pallavi D/o. Nagani Jaiardhari ReOdy aoed 36 years, 6 Dr. Shiva Kumar Mangade"S/o. Laxmin-n"o, "giiJ5i y"urr, [,p.ly]ini^{ReddyD/oIV.vasuoevj neoov, ds;'Jaiy""o,} (reuuoners are workino at Apo o Hospital Enterfrises Ltd. Jubilee Hi s, Hyderabad)

¶24

AND

¶25

...pETtTtONERS/ACCUSED Nos.4, 5, 6,2, 8 and 12

¶26

1 District Medical and Hearth officer, Dr. K. Narendrudu s/o. K. Vasundaram Chetty Aged 59 years. Occ: DMHO O/o. 4th ftoor, NipC SuitOing,^{-'" '} Secunderabad.

¶27

2 State Rept. by its Public prosecutor High Court, Hyderabad.

¶28

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶29

Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in cc.No.17B3 of 2oi4 on the file of the learned llr Additional chief Metropolitan lvragistrate, Hyderabad.

¶30

CRLPMP. N o: 16897 0F 2014

¶31

Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to stay of aI fu(her proceedings incruding the appearance of the petitioners pursuant to cc.No.'1 7g3 ol 2014 on the file of the learned lll Additionar chief lvletropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad is granted the petitioners would suffer irretrievable loss and injury.

¶32

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M/s lndus Law Firm, Advocate for the Petitioner and the public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶33

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶34

THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶35

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.15649 and 15793 of 2OL4

¶36

COMMON ORDER:

¶37

Criminal Petition No. 15649 of 2Ol4 is filed on behalf of Accused Nos.2, 3 and 11 and Criminal petition No.15793 of 2014 is filed on behalf of Accused Nos.4 to g and 12, both under Section 482 of .Cr.p.C. seeking the Court to quash the proceedings that are initiated against them through C.C.No. 1783 of 2014, which stood pending on the file of the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶38

Heard the submission of the learned counsel, who is appearing for the petitioners in both the Criminal petitions and the learned Assistant Public prosecutor appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Gave anxious and due consideration to their submissions and also the contents of the decisions that are relied upon by learned counsei for the petitioners.

¶39

2 I)r^(Sl I C .t'.Nos.l5619 arrd I5?e3 ol20l4

¶40

The District Appropriate Authority, represented^b.v the District Medical and Health Officer,^{Hyderabad,lodged} a complaint against the petitioners in both the Criminal Petitions and 3 others i.e. Apo11o Hospital, Jubilee^Hills, Hyderabad, Dr. Vineeth and Dr. Ritesh,^{who are arrayedas} Accused Nos.1, 9 and 10, respectivelv, alleging that^they have committed offence punishable under Section 23^{of the} Pre-conception and Pre-nata1 Diagnostic^Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter be referred as "PNDT Act" for brevity). The said complaint^u,as taken on file and thereby criminal^{proceedings'\rere} set into motion. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein have approached this Court seeking to quash those proceedings.

¶41

Thus, in the light of the above factual scenario, the point that emerges for consideration is :

¶42

Whether there eist ang^justifiable grounds to quash the proceedings that are initiated against the petitioners through C.C.No.1783 of 2014 pending on the file of the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶43

DT, CSL,J :) Crl.P.Nos.l5649 and 15793 of20l4

¶44

Shorn of details, the facts, as narrated in the complaint, are that the National Inspection and Monitoring Committee aiong with the State Appropriate Authority inspected Apolio Hospital, Jubilee Hil1s, Hyderabad,^on 16.03.2012. During the course of inspection,^procedural violations in carrying out the activities through^machines and improper maintenance of Registers^{was noticed.} Further, the Certificate of Registration was^foundexpired by 28.01.2012 itself. Therefore, the^team of^National Inspection and Monitoring Committee^{made certain} recommendations, including seizure of^{machines and} confiscation thereon. It further^{recommendedinitiation of} legal action against all concerned^{by filing acase,} cancellation of registration etc.^{On that, ultra soundscan} machines, which are three in^{number, were seized.} However, basing on the representation^{made, the said} machines and other machines,^{totalling 11 in number,} were given interim custody. Thus,^{ApolloHospital, whichis} arrayed as Accused No.1, and^{other Accused i.e. the} petitioners herein and Accused Nos.9^{and 10, r'r'ho are}

¶45

.+ Dr. CSL.J Crl P Nos 15649 and 1579:l of20l.1

¶46

Consultant Gynaecologists, and who have been handling the pre-nata1 diagnostic procedures in Accused No.1 Hospital are jointly and severally liable lor punishment under the provisions of the PNDT Act.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioners, taking this Court to the intricacies involved in various provisions of the PNDT Act, contended that the petitioners are not Consultant Gynaecologists, as narrated in the complaint, but they are a1l Radiologists and they have nothing to do lvith the registration certificates to be obtained and likewise they are not concerned with the contents of the registers, but they were illegally put to hardship and as they have not committed any offence, they approached this Court seeking to quash the proceedings that are initiated against them.

¶48

Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners were engaged b1r Accused No.1 Hospital to work under it and though the1, are Radiologists, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners, they .'e re maintaining the Department of

¶49

Dr. CSL.J Crl. P.Nos.l56,19 and¹⁵⁷⁹³ of20l4

¶50

Gynaecologz and were conducting^{procedures, which are} prevented under the PNDT Act and, therefore, complaint was lodged against them too. The^learned Assistant^Public Prosecutor further submitted that though^{the Certificateof} Registration expired by 28.01.2012,^{yet withouttaking} steps for renewal, activities^{werecarriedout and, therefore,} the provisions of the PNDT^{Act, which are to be follorved in} true sense, are violated.

¶51

As it was proposed to^{prohibit pre-natal diagnostic} techniques for determination^{of sex of the foetus leadingto} female foeticide, a Legislation^{was sought to be required to} regulate the use of such techniques^{and, therefore, the} PNDT Act r.r,as enacted. This Act^{providesfor prohibitionof} sex selection before or after^{conceptionand for regulation} of pre-natal diagnostic techniques^{for the purposesof} detecting genetic abnormalities^{or metabolic disorders or} chromosomal abnormalities or^{certaincongenital} malformations or sex-linked^{disorders and forthe} prevention of their misuse for^sex determination^leadingto female foeticide.

¶52

6 DI, CSL.J C .P.Nos.l5649 and 15791 o, 201.1

¶53

Section 2(1) of the PNDT Act defines the term "pre' natal diagnostic procedures", and likeu,ise Section 2(j) defines the word "pre-natal diagnostic tests". It says that pre-natal diagnostic tests, includes a1i pre-natal diagnostic procedures and pre-natal diagnostic tests.

¶54

Section 2(k) of the PNDT Act says what pre-natal diagnostic tests are.

¶55

1 1 . It can be said without any hesitation that pre-natal diagnostic techniques, which means and includes all prenatal diagnostic procedures and pre-natal diagnostic tests would normally be carried out by the Radiologists. The Act mandates that unless registered under the PNDT Act, no Genetic Counselling Centre or Genetic Laboratorv of Genetic Clinic shall conduct or associate with, or help in conducting activities relating to pre-nata1 diagnostic technique s.

¶56

Section 3(3) of the PNDT Act envisages that no medical geneticist, g,naecologist, paediatrician registered medicai practitioner or any other person sha11 conduct or

¶57

Dr CSt- J Crl.P Nos I5649 and l5l9.l ol20l4

¶58

cause to be conducted or aid in conducting^{by himself or} through any other person, any^{pre-nataldiagnostic} techniques at a place other tharr^{the placeregistered under} this Act.

¶59

1 3. Therefore, neither the $'naecologist^{nor Radiologist} or for that matter any medical^{practitionerhas got} authority to conduct or aid in^{conducting pre-natal} diagnostic techniques, which^{are prohibited.}

¶60

Section 4 of the PNDT^{Act, which deals with the} Regulation of pre-natal diagnostic^{techniques, says that} the person conducing ultrasonography^{on apregnant} woman shall keep complete record^{thereof in the clinic in} such a manner, as may be^{prescribed, and any deficiency} orinaccuracy found therein^{shall amount to contravention} of the provisions of Section^{5 or Section 6 of PNDT Act,} unless contrary is proved by^{the person conductingsuch} ultrasonography.

¶61

3 Dr. CSl..j Crl P Nos.l5649 and 15793 ot 20l4

¶62

1.J. As per the version of the respondent, who lodged the complaint, the petitioners have committed olfence punishable under Section 23 of the pNDT Act

¶63

Section 23 of the pNDT Act lays down the offences and penalties. For the sake of proper understanding and fruitful discussion, the said provision is extracted

¶64

hereunder :

¶65

Offences and penalties.-

¶66

(1) Any medical geneticist, grnaecologist, registered medical practitioner or any person who 6wns a Genetic Counselling 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 or 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.

¶67

(?) The name of the registered medical pracritioner shall be reported by the Appropriate Authoritv to the State Medical Council concerned for tating necessary action including suspension of the registr.ation if the charges are framed by the court and till the case is disposed of and orr conviction for removal of his name from the register of the Council for a period of five years for the first

¶68

¶69

Dr. CSL.J Crl.P.Nos.l5649^{and15793ot20l4}

¶70

offence and permanently^{for the subsequent} offence.

¶71

(3) Any person who seeks the aid of any^Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic^{Laboratory, Genetic} Clinic or ultrasound clinic^{or imaging clinic or of a} medical geneticist, Srnaecologist,^{sonologist or} imaging specialist or registered^medical practitioner or any other person for^{sex selectionor} lor conducting pre-natal^{diagnostic techniques on} any pregnant woman for^{the purposesother than} those specified in sub-section^{(2) of section 4, he} shall be punishable with^{imprisonmentfor a term} u,hich may extend to three^{years and with fine} which may extend to fifty thousand^{rupees for the} first offence and for any^{subsequent offence with} imprisonment which may extend to^{five yearsand} rvith fine which may extend^{to one lakhrupees.}

¶72

(4) For the removal of doubts, it^{is hereby provided,} that the provisions of^{sub-section (3) shall not} apply to the woman^{who was compelled to undergo} such diagnostic techniques^{or suchselection.}

¶73

17 . When learned counsel^{for the petitioners contended} that the petitioners have^{not committed any olfence and} the offence, if any committed,^{is by AccusedNo' 1 i.e. Apollo} Hospital, Jubilee Hills,^{Hyderabad, and the petitioners,} though were^{professionals,are employeesof Accused No' 1} and, therefore, they^{have nothing to do with the deviations} that are found or non-renewal^{of Registration or non-} maintenance of machines^{etc',opposing thesaid} submission, the learned^{Additional Public Prosecutor}

¶74

t0 Dr. CSL.J Crl P.Nos.l5649 and 15793 ot 20t4

¶75

submitted that Section 26 of the pNDT Act deals with the offences by Companies and it lays down that every person who, at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

¶76

A perusal of Section 26 of pNDT Act discloses rhat ir is akin to Section 14i of.the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶77

Dealing with the iiability of the Directors and other employees of the Company and their responsibility, whether they can be held guilty of the offence, where the prime accused is the Company, the Honble Apex Court in the case between POOJA RAVINDER DEVIDASANI vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERST at paras 19 to 21 held as follows :

¶78

" 19. A Director of a Company is liable to be convicted for an offence committed bv the Company if he/ she was in charge of ani was responsible to the Company lor the corrduct of its business or if it is proved that the offence was

¶79

I lzote'1 to scc i

¶80

Dr' CSL,J C .P.Nos.l5649^{and15791of2014}

¶81

¶82

committed with^{the consentor connivanceof, or} was attributable^{to any negligenceon the part of} the Director "o.rce.ned [See:^{State of Karnataka} Vs. Pratap Chand^{& Ors. (1981) 2 SCC 3351'}

¶83

In other^{words, the law laid downby this Court} L tf,ut for making^{a Director of a Company liable} for the offences^{committed by the Company} under Section^{141 of the N'I' Act, there must be} specific averments^{against the Director showing as} to how and in^{what manner the Directorwas} responsible^{for the conduct of the businessof the} CompanY.

¶84

1n Sabitha^{Ramamurthy& Anr' Vs' RB'S'} Channbasavaradhya^{(2006) 10 SCC 58f itwas} n.fa fry this^{Couri that it is not necessary for the} .o-pt.i"n"t^{to specifically reproduce the wordings} of tire section^{but what is required IS a clear} statement^{of fact so as to enablethe court to arrlve} ", "^{fri*"facie opinion that the accused is} ,i"^.iot"ty liable. [pit]^{Section1 4 1 raisesa legal} fiction. By^{reason of the said provision' a person} although is^{not personally liable for commission of} such .-an offence would be vicariously 1iab1e tfr"..fo.. Such^{vicarious liabilitycan be inferredso} ;;;;; " company^{registered or incorporatedunder} if,. 6o-p""i."^{e"t, 1SSOis concernedonly if the} requisite statements,^{whichare required to be} "u.r."d^{in the complaintpetition, are made- so as} t. -"[. ,fr. ^..rl*id^{therein vicariously1iab1efor} irr. on .r."^{committed by the companyBy} u..U.ti- reproducing^{the wording of the Section} without a clear^{statement of fact supported by} proper evidence,^{so as tomake the accused} Ii"Jti.""lv^{liabie, is agroundfor. quashing} oroceedings^{initiatedagainst suchperson} under Secl ion^{14 I of the N IAct"}

¶85

Also at^{para-3O of the above decision' it is observed}

¶86

as fo11ou's^:

¶87

12 Dr. CSL.J Crl.P.Nos.l5649 and l5'793 of2014

¶88

"30. Putting the criminal 1aw into motion is not a matter of course. To settle the scores between the parties which are more in the nature of a civil dispute, the parties cannot be permitted to put the criminal 1aw into motion and Courts .ar.rot be a mere spectator to it. Before a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence under Sectiorr 1381141 of the N.l. Act, making a person vicariously liable has to ensure strict compliance of the statutory requirements. The Superior Courts should maintain purity in the administration of Justice and should not al1ou, abuse of the process of the Court. The High Court ought to have quashed the complaint against the appellant which is nothing but a pure abuse of process of law."

¶89

Thus, it is clear that, though the Directors ol the Company and other employees, as per Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act or as per Section 26 of the PNDT Act are proved to be in such a position, unless and unlil pima-facie proof is produced that they were incharge of and were responsible in conducting the business of the Company, they cannot be tagged with criminal liability. Thus, this Court is in dis-agreement with the submission of the learned Assistant pubiic prosecutor that taking aid of Section 26 of the PNDT Act, the petitioners can be held liab1e.

¶90

I3 Dr. CSL.J Cd.P.Nos.l5649 and t 5793 of20l4

¶91

21 . Learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of his submission, contended that wide powers are given to the District Appropriate Authority and the said Authority has got every power to summon any person, to seek for production of any document or material object, to issue search warrant and to adopt any other procedure during the course of enquiry, but without doing so, the District Appropriate Authority has initiated proceedings against the petitioners, which is unreasonable,

¶92

Section 17-A of the^pNDT Act deals with the po\rers of the Appropriate Authorities and it reasd as under :

¶93

17-A. Powers of Appropriate Authorities.-

¶94

The Appropriate Authority shall have the powers in respect of the following matters, namely:-

¶95

(a) summoning of any person who is in possession of any information relating to violation of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder;

¶96

(b) production of any document or material object relating to clause (a);

¶97

t4 Dr CSL.J Crl P Nos 15649 aDd 15793 ol l0ll

¶98

(c) issuing search warrant^{for any placesuspected} to be indulging in sex^{selection techniquesor pre-} natal sex determination;^and

¶99

(d) any other matter which may^{be prescribed.}

¶100

Admittedly, as per the^{contentsof the complaint, no} such power appears to^{have been exercisedby the} complainant i.e. District Appropriate^Authority.

¶101

Submitting that when^{such power is not exercised} and when without materiai details,^{complaint is lodged,the} proceedings are liable to bi^{quashed, learned counselfor} the petitioners brought to^{the notice of this Court the} decision rendered by High Court^{ofBombay at} Aurangabad, between Dr. SAI^{vs.STATE OF} MAHARASHTRAz. In the said decision,^{the High Court of} Bombay at para-18 observed thus^:

¶102

Thus, if we read the^{provisionsof sections} 17 , 17 A and 28 of the said^{Act together, then the} role of the Appropriate Authority^isvery important.The Appropriate Authorily^{has to act} as an investigator to inquire^{into the allegations} of violation of the PCPNDT Act^{and Rules} thereunder either on the basis^{of complaint} received as well as to act suo^{tnotu. The role of}

¶103

r 1zot6; : AIR Bom R (cri) 616

¶104

Dr. CSt..l ( rl.l'.Nos 15619 and t5193 ol l0ll

¶105

¶106

1-5

¶107

the Appropriate Authority is not just to receive the complaint and file the proceeding in the Court of law. Section fig)(cl specifically provides that, one of the function of the Appropriate Authority is to investigate the complaints of breach of provisions of the act and the rules made thereunder and take tegal action. Section 17 g)(e) provides that, ii.,. Appropriate Authority to take legal action against the use of any sex selection te-hnique by any person at any place, suo motu or brought to its notice or also to initiate independent investigation in such matter. Thus, to invistigate the complaints received against the perins violating the provisions of pCpNDT Act is,the job of Appropriate Authority. Outcome of such investigation provides basis either to drop the proceeding or to initiate appropriate p.o.eidi.,g '*,hich^includes initiation of criminal prosecution by fiiing complaint u/s 28 of pCpNDT Act. Mere report or complaint or information received cannot be sole basis to prosecute the person. if the complaint is inquired and investigated results into collection of evidence sufficient to prosecute the person for violation of the provisions of PCPNDT Act, then only criminal proceeding is expected to be filed u/s 28 of the PCPNDT Act. There appears to be specific legislative intent behind introducing Section l7A in the PCPNDT Act (incorporated by amended act of 2003) to vest full-fledged por.r,ers ol inquiry and Appropriate Authority to investigate thl matter. Thus, the role of the Appropriate Authority is much more than the aurhoritv to file complaint.

¶108

Having regard to the power granted under Section 17-A of the Act, the Appropriate Authority ought to have investigated into the case by summoning the persons who,

¶109

Dr. CSL.J 16 Crl.P Nos.l5649^{and15791ol2Ul4}

¶110

according^{to it, were in custody of the Registers and were} maintaining^{those Registers' Further' in the complaint'it is} mentioned^{that the petitioners herein are Gynaecologists'} However,^{it is brought to the notice of this Court by filing} relevant^{documents that the petitionersare qualified} the District Radiologists.^{Therefore, it isclear that} Appropriate^{Authorityis not even awareas to the exact} qualification^{and the position of the petitioners herein'}

¶111

AS 26. Referring^{inthe . comPiaint} a Radiologist Gynaecologist^{itself would go to showthat no enqulry \'as} conducted^{into the genuinenessorotherwiseofthe} allegations'^{When power is granted for investigationto the} Appropriate^{Authority for collection of appropriate material} before lodging^{a complaint,the Appropriate Authority is} under obligation^{to exercise the said powerand to file a} complaint^{thereafter,if required'so that the real culprits} would be^{bookedand the innocent' ifany' can be} eliminated.^{But, in the case of hand' such an enquiryis} not found^{to have been made' Mere seizure of some} machines^{and finding that the recordsconcernedare}

¶112

DI, CSL,J t1 Cn.P.Nos.l5649^{and15793012014}

¶113

mean that^{the DoctorsemPloYed} incomPlete^{does not} the Rules.^{Admittedly,the Doctors} therein^{have violated} the Radiologists,^{would conduct} emploYed,^thattoo investigations,^{as required or as prescribed'and r'vould} furnishreport.Itisforthestaffwhoareappointedbythe Hospital^{for the purpose of maintaining the recordsto} maintain^{them properly and promptly'Ifthe required} records and^{registersare not maintainedin the ProPer} shape and^{proper form as lequired underlaw' then the} Hospital^{authorities, who are maintaining the records and} registers,^{can be made vicariously liable' but not the} Doctors,^{who are employed only for the purpose of} operating^{the machines and submittingtheir opinion'The} District Appropriate^{Authority atleast ought to have issued} notice to^{the petitionersherein to submit their version'} ',vhich^{inturn,would have helped itto come to a just} conclusion^{with regard to their involvement' It appearsthat} under the^{directions andinvolvementofNational} Inspection^{and Monitoring Committee' Accused No' 1 -} Hospital^{was inspectedand only basing onthe} recommendations^{made by the said Committee' the}

¶114

l.\ Dr. CSL.J Crl I).Nos 156.19 and 15793 ol 20ll

¶115

proceedings, by filing complaint, were initiated against Accused No.1 Hospital and others, including the petitioners herein. This is quite evident as per the contents of paras - 5 and 6 of the compiaint

¶116

The role and power of Appropriate Authority^{is clearll'} mentioned under Section 17 and 17-A of the PNDT Act.^Br' the contents of those provisions, it is clear that the role of the Appropriate Authority and the part to be^played b-v it^is exhaustive and it cannqt^just receive information in^the a1 form of a complaint or just act suo motu and lodge complaint without proper verification. It is not out of^place to mention that if proper enquiry is conducted and the case is investigated into, the collection of material u'ould even help the Appropriate Authority to place sufficient^proof before the Court of law and to get the Accused convtcted. But without doing so i.e. without exercising the^porver of enquiry, without enquiring into the allegations levelled and the information received, il the complaint is lodged and criminal proceedings are initiated, the same ma1, not yield the desired result of the Appropriate Authorit-v.-. Further,

¶117

l9 Dr. CSL,J Crl.P.Nos.l5649 and I5?93 of20l4

¶118

unhesitatingly, it can be said that the^{person roped in as} an Accused would be put to^{enormousloss and hardship.} That is not the intention of the Legisiature^whichhas passed the PNDT Act.

¶119

In catena of decisions,^{including the famouscase} under Section 482 of^{Cr.P.C. i.e. STATE OF HARYANAvs'} BHAJAN LAL3, it is laid down^{that to prevent abuse of} process of any Court or otherwise^{to secure the ends of} justice, the High Court has power to^{quash the} proceedings. In the case on hand,^{the allegations made in} the complaint, even if taken^{on their face value to be true,} atleast prima-facie case^{is not made out against the} petitioners herein. Therefore,^{this Court is of the view that} the criminal proceedings,^{as prayed for, are liable to be} quashed.

¶120

In the result,^{both these Criminal Petitionsare} allowed. The^{proceedingsinitiatedagainst the petitioners} herein i.e. Accused Nos.2 to 8,^{11 and 12 in C'C'No'1783 of} 2014, which is^{pending on the file of the Court of III}

¶121

r tqg: scc (cri) al6

¶122

20 DI, CSL,J Crl.P.Nos.l5649 and 15791ol 20l4

¶123

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad,^a-re

¶124

hereby quashed.

¶125

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shal1

¶126

stand closed

¶127

SD/.K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY'

SECTION OFFICER

One Fair Copy_to the Hon,ble Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha (For His Lordship Kind perusat)

¶132

To,

¶133

The lllAdditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. ? 9n"^{CC to M/s. tndus Law rirm,-AouocZie'fOpdil} 3. Two CCs to the pubtic prosecutor, High C;,:;'to"rifi" Stut. of Tetangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI 4.^'1 1 LR Copies Union of tndia Ministry of Law, Justice and company u I?: }J,:R?*.BJfii:" The Secretary, Telanoana Advocates Association, Library, High Court Buildings, Hyilerabadl 7. Two CD Copies 8. One Spare Copy gbr \ V

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1710212022

COMMON ORDER

E SiAi €
k
c)oe 0I APfi ;ir
.n

¶138

CRL.P.Nos.15649 and 15793 of 2014

¶139

ALLOWING THE BOTH CRIMINAL PETITIONS