CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana high court has observed that in the event of a complaint case and a police investigation of the same offence, the magistrate concerned shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of a police report.
The HC said that in such a situation, an FIR is certainly maintainable, but for taking cognizance, the report under Section 173 of CrPC should be accompanied by the complaint of an appropriate authority.
“It is the trial court that shall decide whether cognizance is to be taken in a particular case on the basis of the police report accompanied with the appropriate complaint,” observed the HC.
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi of the HC has passed these orders while dismissing a petition filed by Dr Ila Sood, a doctor from Khanna in Ludhiana district of Punjab, seeking quashing of an FIR registered against her under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act.
The petitioner had approached the HC for quashing of FIR No.05 of January 3, 2016, registered under the PNDT Act, 1994 and PC PNDT Rules, 1996, as well as Sections 120-B (party to criminal conspiracy) of the IPC at Police Station City Khanna, in Ludhiana.
The hospital was raided by a team of three doctors constituted by CMO Ambala with the assistance of SMO Khanna and local police. During the raid, the team had given some amount to the touts of the hospital for carrying out a sex determination test by two touts inside the hospital. While the total deal was finalised at Rs 25,000, an advance of Rs 15,000 was given to the touts. As per the allegations, the test was conducted without entering the name of the patient in the hospital record.
In her plea before the HC, while referring to various provisions of the PNDT Act, the primary contention of the petitioner was that in terms of Section 28 of the PC & PNDT Act, no court could take cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a complaint made by the appropriate authority concerned. It was contended that the said complaint had already been filed and therefore, the present FIR was not maintainable.
After hearing all the parties, the HC held that in the present case, an FIR is clearly maintainable under the provisions of the PNDT Act, 1994, and even otherwise, the petitioner has the remedy of seeking clubbing of both the cases in terms of Section 210 of the CrPC, in which case the trial shall proceed like in a state case.
