The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has held that under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PC & PNDT) Act, 1994, a complaint can be filed not only by the Appropriate Authority but also by any officer authorized by them. The court clarified that the District Magistrate, acting as the Appropriate Authority, has the power to delegate the authority to initiate legal action.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Brij Raj Singh while dismissing an application filed under Section 482 of the CrPC by Dr. Gayatri Singh, who sought to challenge orders rejecting her discharge application in a case registered under Section 23 of the Act.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from a complaint filed on November 18, 2008, by Dr. A.K. Chaudhary, the then Additional Chief Medical Officer (ACMO) of Lucknow, following a search and seizure operation at Maa Chandrika Devi Maternity and Surgical Center on November 13, 2008.
The Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint on November 20, 2008. The applicant, a practicing gynecologist, later moved a discharge application, which was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, on June 13, 2024. A subsequent criminal revision filed by the applicant was also dismissed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) on November 18, 2025.
Arguments Presented
The counsel for the applicant raised two primary legal contentions:
- Unauthorized Complainant: It was argued that the ACMO is not the “Appropriate Authority” under Section 17 of the Act. The counsel contended that under Section 28, only the District Magistrate (the Appropriate Authority) could file the complaint, and a single member could not authorize such action.
- Lack of Reasoned Order: It was submitted that while taking action under Section 30 of the Act, the District Magistrate is required to record reasons, which was allegedly not done in this case.
The applicant’s counsel relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Ravinder Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (2024) and a coordinate bench ruling in Dr. Vinod Kumar Bassi Vs. State of U.P. (2024).
Opposing the plea, the Additional Advocate General for the State submitted that Section 28(1)(a) of the Act expressly allows a complaint to be filed by “the Appropriate Authority concerned, or any officer authorised in this behalf.” He pointed out that the District Magistrate had specifically authorized the ACMO to file the complaint via an order dated August 18, 2008.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The court examined the provisions of Sections 17 and 28 of the PC & PNDT Act. Justice Brij Raj Singh observed that the issue of authorization is well-settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Manvinder Singh Gill (2015), the High Court quoted:
“Under Section 28 (1)(a) any officer authorised by the ‘Appropriate Authority’ notified under Section 17 (3) would also be entitled to initiate action under the Act.”
The Court noted that the previous coordinate bench decision in Dr. Vinod Kumar Bassi cited by the applicant had failed to consider the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Manvinder Singh Gill case.
Regarding the second argument concerning the lack of reasons in the search authorization, the Court found that the order dated November 13, 2008, was issued under Rule 11 of the 1996 Rules, which pertains to inspections. The Court held:
“Rule 11 further provides that the Appropriate Authority may authorize any other person to act in this behalf and there is no illegality in the order of authorization.”
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that at the stage of a Section 482 petition challenging a discharge rejection, it cannot conduct a “mini-trial.” Addressing the applicant’s claim that the complaint was based on hearsay, the Court remarked:
“The inherent jurisdiction of this Court does not extend to assessing the probative value of evidence, which is a matter to be determined during trial upon the parties leading evidence in accordance with law.”
Decision
Concluding that the authorization by the District Magistrate was valid and the complaint was maintainable, the High Court found no merit in the application and rejected the petition.
Case Details
Case Title: Gayatri Nanjundappa @ Dr. Gayatri Singh Vs. The State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and another
Case Number: APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 871 of 2026
