The Allahabad High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against Dr. Brij Pal Singh, a Bulandshahar-based doctor accused of conducting illegal sex determination tests under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PC&PNDT Act). The court ruled that the proceedings initiated were “legally unsustainable” due to improper authorization for filing the complaint, reiterating the need for strict adherence to procedural mandates under the law.
Case Background
The case arose from an FIR filed in 2017 after a sting operation conducted by local authorities at Sobha Ram Hospital in Bulandshahar. Acting on a tip-off, a decoy customer, constable Preeti, posed as a pregnant woman seeking a sex determination test. The authorities alleged that Dr. Singh, along with his associates, agreed to conduct the illegal procedure, and money exchanged hands for this purpose. Subsequently, the Tehsildar, Khurja, authorized by the District Magistrate, led the operation that resulted in the doctor’s arrest and the seizure of ultrasound equipment.
Dr. Singh was charged under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the PC&PNDT Act, including Sections 315 and 511 IPC, and Sections 4, 5(2), 6(a), 23, and 25 of the PC&PNDT Act, for conducting sex selection and related illegal activities.
Key Legal Issue
The primary legal issue raised by Dr. Singh’s counsel, Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy, was the improper filing of the complaint. The defense argued that under Section 28 of the PC&PNDT Act, only the “appropriate authority” or an officer specifically authorized by the government can file a valid complaint. In this case, the FIR had been filed by the Tehsildar, who was not recognized as the appropriate authority under the Act. Counsel for the applicant cited a prior judgment, Dr. Vinod Kumar Bassi vs. The State of U.P. (2024), where a similar procedural flaw led to the quashing of proceedings.
The prosecution, represented by Additional Government Advocate Pankaj Srivastava, contended that the FIR was filed based on the District Magistrate’s authorization, arguing that this was a sufficient compliance with the law. The State argued that the investigation and subsequent charges against Dr. Singh were conducted lawfully, and there was no reason to quash the proceedings.
Court’s Decision
After hearing both parties, Justice Anish Kumar Gupta ruled in favor of the applicant, Dr. Singh. The court observed that the PC&PNDT Act requires strict compliance with procedural safeguards due to the serious nature of the allegations. Section 28 of the Act mandates that complaints must be filed by the appropriate authority, and in this case, the Tehsildar did not meet that requirement. The court held that “cognizance without proper authorization is legally unsustainable,” quashing the criminal proceedings against Dr. Singh.
Important Observations
Justice Gupta emphasized the significance of following the procedural mandates under the PC&PNDT Act, stating, “The statutory framework of the Act is clear in its intent to prevent female foeticide, but this cannot come at the cost of disregarding the procedural safeguards that are essential for upholding justice.”
The judgment also reiterated that while the Act aims to curb the misuse of diagnostic techniques for sex determination, the law must be enforced within its clearly defined legal parameters. The court further noted that, “The magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the case based on an unauthorized complaint, which is a serious procedural lapse.”
