- (1.) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No.78 dated 15.08.2012 under Section 23 of Pre Conception and Pre Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1996 (here-in-after referred to as 'the PNDT Act') and Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 registered at Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Section 17 of the PNDT Act, the Appropriate Authority has been prescribed but none of the Authority has put the Court into motion and as such, in view of provisions of Section 28 of the PNDT Act, the taking of cognizance of offence under the PNDT Act is totally contrary to the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel also submits that the Appropriate Authority or authorized officer is to give notice of not less than 15 days in the manner prescribed. The powers to search and seize the record is also provided under Section 30 of the PNDT Act. The trial Court has not taken into consideration the specific bar contained in Section 28 of the PNDT Act and by relying upon the judgment in case Dr. Preetinder Kaur and others vs The State of Punjab and others, decided on 10.02.2010, the charges have been framed and the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is not only misuse of process of the Court but also no prima facie offence is made out against the petitioner as the petitioner has not conducted any test at the pre natal stage. Said judgment is not applicable in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. Learned counsel further submits that the FIR as well as charge sheet and other proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed being without any jurisdiction and especially keeping in view the provisions as enshrined under Section 28 of the PNDT Act as no power is there with the police to investigate the matter and the cognizance has to be taken by the Magistrate only on the basis of complaint filed before the appropriate authority. Learned counsel further submits that the case of the present petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of Gujrat High Court in case SUO MOTU vs State of Gujarat passed in Criminal Reference No.4 of 2008 with Criminal Reference No.3 of 2008.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent-State has fairly admitted the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file.;