# Dr. Vinod Kumar Bassi v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 961
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-22
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 2998 of 2014
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-vinod-kumar-bassi-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51724
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973
-
Sections
482
-
Pre-Natal
Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex
Selection) Act, 1994 - Sections 3, 23,
17(1), 17(2), 17(3)(a), 17(3)(b) & 28 -
Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. - for quashing the
order by which trial court taking cognizance and
summon the applicant - complaint - filed by the
Additional Chief Medical Officer under section
3/23 of the Act, 1994 - under authority given by
the Competent Authority/District Magistrate
under Sections 28 of the Act, 1994 - court
observed that, Complaint had been filed by the
Additional Chief Medical Officer, who was not
the "Appropriate Authority" as defined under
Section 17 of the Act and thus lacked the legal
standing to initiate proceedings under Section
28 - held - since the Act mandates that only the
Appropriate Authority or an authorized officer
may file such complaints, the trial court's
cognizance of the matter was deemed without
jurisdiction,
rendering
the
complaint
and
subsequent proceedings invalid - accordingly,
application is allowed and impugned order as
well as entire proceeding are quashed.
(Para - 6, 7, 9, 10, 11)

Application Dismissed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: - no case cited.

## Text

3 All. Dr. Vinod Kumar Bassi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
961
application under Section 321 Cr.P.C., is
quashed.

40. The trial Court is directed to
decide the application under Section 321
Cr.P.C. filed by the State afresh keeping in
view the observations made in this
judgment.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 961
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 2998 of 2014

Dr. Vinod Kumar Bassi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Amrendra Singh, Ishan Baghel, Pankaj
Bala, Veena Vijayan Rajes

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Ajay Krishna

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973
-
Sections
482
-
Pre-Natal
Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex
Selection) Act, 1994 - Sections 3, 23,
17(1), 17(2), 17(3)(a), 17(3)(b) & 28 -
Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. - for quashing the
order by which trial court taking cognizance and
summon the applicant - complaint - filed by the
Additional Chief Medical Officer under section
3/23 of the Act, 1994 - under authority given by
the Competent Authority/District Magistrate
under Sections 28 of the Act, 1994 - court
observed that, Complaint had been filed by the
Additional Chief Medical Officer, who was not
the "Appropriate Authority" as defined under
Section 17 of the Act and thus lacked the legal
standing to initiate proceedings under Section
28 - held - since the Act mandates that only the
Appropriate Authority or an authorized officer
may file such complaints, the trial court's
cognizance of the matter was deemed without
jurisdiction,
rendering
the
complaint
and
subsequent proceedings invalid - accordingly,
application is allowed and impugned order as
well as entire proceeding are quashed.
(Para - 6, 7, 9, 10, 11)

Application Dismissed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: - no case cited.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,
J.)

1. Heard Sri Ishan Baghel Advocate,
the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Anurag Verma, the learned AGA-I for the
State and perused the record.

2. By means of the instant application
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the
applicant has sought quashing of an order
dated
03.06.2014
as well
as
entire
proceeding of Case No. 4495 of 2011,
under Sections 3/23 Pre-Conception & PreNatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition
of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, Police Station
Sandila, District Hardoi, pending in the
court of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 3, Hardoi.

3. The aforesaid complaint was filed
by Additional Chief Medical Officer,
Hardoi against the applicant and one Raj
Kishore Awasthi, stating that he had been
authorized by the District Magistrate/
Appropriate Authority to file the complaint
under Section 28 of Pre-conception & Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of
Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (which will
hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act of
1994'). The complaint alleges that the
provisions of the aforesaid act were being
violated in a diagnostic centre owned by
the co-accused persons where the applicant
was
carrying
out
Ultra
Sonographic
Examination of patients.
962 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
has submitted that Section 28 of the Act of
1994 provides as follows:-

"28. Cognizance of offences.-
(1) No court shall take cognizance of an
offence under this Act except on a
complaint made by-

(a) the Appropriate Authority
concerned, or any officer authorised in this
behalf by the Central Government or the
State Government, as the case may be, or
the Appropriate Authority; or

(b) a person who has given notice
of not less than fifteen days in the manner
prescribed, to the Appropriate Authority, of
the alleged offence and of his intention to
make a complaint to the court.

Explanation.-For the purpose of
this clause, "person" includes a social
organisation.

(2) No court other than that of a
Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial
Magistrate of the first class shall try any
offence punishable under this Act.

(3) Where a complaint has been
made under clause (b) of sub-section (1),
the court may, on demand by such person,
direct the Appropriate Authority to make
available copies of the relevant records in
its possession to such person."

5. The manner of appointment of
'appropriate authority' is provided in
Section 17 (1) & (2) of the Act of 1994 as
follows:-

"17. Appropriate Authority and
Advisory Committee.-

1. The Central Government shall
appoint, by notification in the Official
Gazette,
one
or
more
Appropriate
Authorities
for
each
of
the
Union
Territories for the purposes of this Act.

2. The State Government shall
appoint, by notification in the Official
Gazette,
one
or
more
Appropriate
Authorities for the whole or part of the
State for the purposes of this Act having
regard to the intensity of the problem of
pre-natal sex determination leading to
female foeticide.

3. The officers appointed as
Appropriate Authorities under sub-section
(1) or sub-section (2) shall be,-

(a) when appointed for the whole
of the State or the Union Territory,
consisting
of
the
following
three
members-

(i) an officer of or above the rank
of the Joint Director of Health and Family
Welfare-Chairperson;

(ii)
an
eminent
woman
representing women's organisation; and

(iii) an officer of Law Department
of the State or the Union Territory
concerned:

Provided that it shall be the duty
of the State or the Union Territory
concerned to constitute multi-member State
or Union territory level Appropriate
Authority within three months of the
coming into force of the Pre-natal
Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and
Prevention of Misuse) Amendment Act,
2002:

Provided
further
that
any
vacancy occurring therein shall be filled
within three months of the occurrence.]

(b) when appointed for any part
of the State or the Union Territory, of such
other rank as the State Government or the
Central Government, as the case may be,
may deem fit.
* * *

6. In exercise of the aforesaid
provision, the State Government has issued
a Notification dated 30.11.2007 providing
3 All. Mohd. Deen Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
963
that the District Magistrate shall be the
Appropriate Authority under Section
17(3)(a) read with 17(3)(b) of the act of
1994. The submission of the learned
counsel for the applicant is that as the
Additional Chief Medical Officer is not the
appropriate authority, he could not have
filed a complaint for any alleged violation
of the provisions of the aforesaid Act and
the trial court could not have taken
cognizance of the complaint which had not
been filed by the appropriate authority.

7. Opposing the submissions, the
learned AGA-I has submitted that the
applicant has the opportunity to defend him
before the trial court and since the
complaint makes out commission of
offences under the Act by the applicant, it
is not a fit case where this Court should
exercise its inherent powers for quashing
the proceedings of the complaint.

8. I have heard the aforesaid facts and
circumstances
of
the
case
and
the
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties.

9. When the Act of 1994 clearly
provides
that
no
Court
shall
take
cognizance of any offence under the Act
except on a complaint made by the
appropriate authority, the court has no
jurisdiction to take cognizance of any
offence except on a complaint made by the
appropriate authority. There can be no
dispute against the fact that the Additional
Chief Medical Officer is not an appropriate
authority and he has no authority to file a
complaint
for
any
alleged
offence
committed under the provisions of the
aforesaid Act and the Government Order.
Therefore, as the complaint itself was
incompetent, the trial court had no
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
offences alleged in the complaint and to
summon the applicant for being tried for
the alleged offences.

10. Accordingly, the application is
allowed.

11. The order dated 03.06.2014 as
well as entire proceeding of Case No. 4495
of
2011,
under
Sections
3/23
PreConception
&
Pre-Natal
Diagnostic
Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection )
Act, 1994, Police Station Sandila, District
Hardoi, pending in the court of learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No. 3, Hardoi, are hereby quashed.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 963
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA,
J.

Application U/S 482. No. 3923 of 2005

Mohd. Deen ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Kumar Dhananjay

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Shivesh Mishra

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 311 & 482 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 302 & 307 - Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 40, 41, 42 &
44 - Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. - for quashing
the charge-sheet as well as the entire criminal
proceedings - FIR - offence of murder - writ
petition filed challenging the FIR - court issued