CHAUDHARY BHAGUBHAI MANSANGBHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.RA/1354/2024                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
            SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 1354 of 2024


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI                      Sd/-

==========================================================

             Approved for Reporting                     Yes             No
                                                         √
==========================================================
                     CHAUDHARY BHAGUBHAI MANSANGBHAI
                                   Versus
                          STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSHADKUMAR D PANCHAL(9015) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS JYOTI BHATT APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                                   Date : 06/04/2026

                                      JUDGMENT


1.       Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the
respondent – State.


2.       By way of this application under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short,
‘Cr.PC’), the applicant has, inter-alia, prayed for quashing and
setting aside the impugned order dated 11.07.2024 passed by
the      learned         2nd   Additional   Sessions         Judge,     Mehsana           at


                                       Page 1 of 23
     R/CR.RA/1354/2024                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




Visnagar.

3.       As per the facts of the prosecution, an FIR bearing CR
No.II-406 of 2012 was registered with Visnagar Police Station,
District       Mehsana   by   Pravinaben        being     a    Sub     Divisional
Magistrate, Visnagar as de-facto complainant on 27.11.2012
for the alleged commission of offence punishable under
Sections 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 22, 23, 25 and 29 of the Pre-
Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of
Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (for short, ‘PC&PNDT’ Act).

3.1      It was alleged in the FIR that on the basis of the
information received by the District Collector, sting operation
was carried out and search at the place of the accused and
after recording statements of some witnesses, complaint was
filed. It was the allegation in the complaint that illegally, the
applicant was conducting the sex determination of foetus, by
examining through sonography.

3.2      The applicant was arrested and released on regular bail
at that time. Further, the charge-sheet came to be filed in
which Sections 313, 315 and Section 114 of the Indian Penal
Code (for short, ‘I.P.C’) were also added.

4.       The application under Section 227 of the Cr.PC was
moved to discharge the applicant from the offence under
Sections 313 and 315 of the I.P.C.


5.       Learned Advocate Mr. Harshadkumar Panchal for the
applicant referring to the provision of Section 28 of PC&PNDT


                                 Page 2 of 23
  R/CR.RA/1354/2024                                JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




Act submitted that the invocation of section 313 and 315 along
with Section 114 of IPC in the charge-sheet would be contrary
to the provision of PC&PNDT Act. Advocate Mr. Panchal
submitted that as provided under Section 28 of the PC&PNDT
Act, there could be no FIR in the police station and that it is
only the Court which can take cognizance of the offence under
the PC&PNDT Act on the complaint made by the appropriate
authority concerned or any officer authorized in this behalf by
the Central Government or the State Government or the
appropriate authority. Hence, advocate Mr. Panchal submitted
that the challenge had been given to the complaint filed under
Section 154 of the Cr.PC by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Visnagar.


5.1   Learned Advocate Mr. Panchal stated that the very
registration of the FIR against the applicant should be
considered to be bad in law and therefore, the petitioner had
preferred quashing petition being Cr.MA No.1918 of 2013
before this High Court where initially, the stay was granted
and    thereafter     along   with    other    petitions,     the    petition
preferred by the revisionist also came to be dismissed by this
Court. Thereafter, the revisionist had approached the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.


5.2   Learned Advocate Mr. Panchal thus submitted that in
view of the dismissal of the quashing petition, the discharge
application Exh.58 was moved with a limited purpose of
discharging the applicant for the offence under Sections 313,



                                Page 3 of 23
  R/CR.RA/1354/2024                                           JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




315 and 114 of the IPC. Advocate Mr. Panchal submitted that
the application of the petitioner came to be rejected on
11.07.2024            by    the   Additional         Sessions       Court     and      the
revisionist thus being aggrieved has come before this Court in
the revision jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section
401 of the Cr.PC.


5.3   Learned          Advocate      Mr.     Panchal          for    the    revisionist
submitted that the impugned order is ex-facie illegal, unjust
and against the provision of the statues. The order is patently
erroneous, palpably wrong and demonstrably illegal. The
learned trial Court Judge has committed serious error while
appreciating          the    facts   of   the        case,    which      had     led       to
miscarriage of justice.


5.3.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Panchal raised apprehension that
pending       criminal        proceeding,            the     registration       of     the
hospital/centre would be cancelled or suspended effecting the
livelihood of applicant.


5.4   Learned Advocate Mr. Harshadkumar Panchal contended
that the learned Judge has not appreciated the ingredients of
Section 313 and 315 of the IPC where no single material on
record or the proof relied upon by the prosecution connects
the applicant with the offence. Advocate Mr. Panchal submitted
that it was a decoy trap and thus, there could not be any case
of causing miscarriage without the woman’s consent as
provided under Section 313 nor would be a case of any act
done with an intent to prevent child being born alive or to


                                      Page 4 of 23
     R/CR.RA/1354/2024                             JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




cause it to die after birth as provided under Section 313 and
315 of the IPC. Advocate Mr. Panchal further stated that the
statement of the witnesses recorded by the police as provided
under the charge-sheet does not make the case as alleged by
the prosecution, thus, made a prayer to set aside the order of
the learned Additional Sessions Judge below Exh.58 and to
discharge the applicant from Sessions Case No.11 of 2015
allowing the application Exh.58.


6.       Per contra, learned APP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt submitted that it
is not only the case of decoy trap but a complaint by the
learned        Sub-Divisional   Magistrate      before   the     police         on
27.11.2012 to make further investigation in connection with
the complaint given by her, where the trap disclosed the
offence under the PC&PNDT Act. Further, it was noticed that
the accused doctor was not maintaining the record in the
hospital as mandated by the PC&PNDT Act and therefore, it
was necessary to make further investigation to dig in and find
out whether any case was found of causing miscarriage, and
any criminal act of the applicant. APP Ms. Bhatt submitted that
the police in the investigation by recording the statements of
the witnesses and the victim could find that the accused had
committed the offence of causing miscarriage without the
woman’s consent and that the accused as a doctor was found
to be indulged in the acts of preventing the child from being
born alive and such acts were not in a good faith for the
purpose of saving the life of the mother, but was only after the
sex determination of the foetus, the foetus were removed so


                                 Page 5 of 23
     R/CR.RA/1354/2024                        JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




that no girl child would be born.


7.       The main crux of the argument from the side of learned
Advocate Mr. Panchal was that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
had no authority to file any complaint before the police in view
of Section 28 of the PC&PNDT Act, whether the authority
would only have the power to make a complaint under
PC&PNDT Act and not IPC and further under Section 28 of the
PC&PNDT Act, the Court would only take cognizance of the
offence under the PC&PNDT Act on the complaint made by the
appropriate authority concerned. Thus, it was argument of
learned Advocate Mr. Panchal that there could not be any
invocation of the provision of the Sections of the IPC.


7.1      Section 28 of the PC&PNDT Act reads as under:
         “(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 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.

         (2) No Court other than that of a Metropolitan
         Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first


                               Page 6 of 23
     R/CR.RA/1354/2024                             JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




         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.”


8.       It is submitted before the Bar that the private complaint
has already been filed by the present de-facto complainant
before the concerned Court. The police machinery was moved
on      the     complaint   dated    27.11.2012    by    the    Pravinaben
D.K.S.D.M. Visnagar informing the police of the commission of
the offence punishable under Sections 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 22, 23,
25 and 29 of the PC&PNDT Act, where the FIR bearing II 406
of 2012 was registered with Visnagar Police Station, District
Mehsana.


8.1      The de-facto complainant informed the police that the
sting operation was carried out and the search was made at
Sharda Maternity and Surgical Nursing Home in VM Complex,
where accused no.1 i.e. present revisionist was serving as
Gynecologist doctor and where accused was determining the
sex of the foetus for examination to know whether it was male
or a female by way of sonography and the information being
received by the complainant, a sting operation was conducted
on 27.11.2012. The decoy witness statement was recorded
before learned Executive Magistrate, Visnagar and she was


                                    Page 7 of 23
     R/CR.RA/1354/2024                       JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




handed over Rs.10,000/-, the denomination of the notes were
recorded and was sent to the hospital, where accused no.2
had accepted Rs.200/- for the registration of the case, while
accused no.1 with assistance of accused no.3 had examined
the foetus of the decoy woman witness and had accepted the
money from her and during that period, at about 15:45 hours,
the complainant along with the witnesses, had raided the
hospital and at that time, from the possession of accused no.1,
the currency notes which were handed over in total of
Rs.9,500/- were recovered, and along with other amount of
Rs.1,39,230/-.


9.       The law as has been laid down explains the definition of
embryo and foetus in Section 2(bb), (bc) reproduced herein-
under :


         (bb) “embryo” means a developing human
         organism after fertilisation till the end of
         eight weeks (fifty-six days);

         (bc) “foetus” means a human organism
         during the period of its development
         beginning on         the fifty-seventh     day
         following fertilisation or creation (excluding
         any time in which its development has
         been suspended) and ending at the birth;

10.      Chapter (III) regulates Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques.
Section 4 is provided for the regulation of Prenatal Diagnostic
Techniques and Section 5 is with regard to the written consent



                              Page 8 of 23
  R/CR.RA/1354/2024                           JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




of pregnant woman and prohibition of communicating the sex
of foetus. Both the sections are reproduced herein-below for
ready reference:


              “4. Regulation of pre-natal diagnostic
              techniques.-   On   and    from   the
              commencement of this Act,—

              1. no place including a registered
              Genetic Counselling Centre or Genetic
              Laboratory or Genetic Clinic shall be
              used or caused to be used by any person
              for conducting pre-natal diagnostic
              techniques except for the purposes
              specified in clause (2) and after
              satisfying any of the conditions specified
              in clause (3);

              2. no pre-natal diagnostic techniques
              shall be conducted except for the
              purposes of detection of any of the
              following abnormalities, namely:—
              (i) chromosomal abnormalities;
              (ii) genetic metabolic diseases;
              (iii) haemoglobinopathies;
              (iv) sex-linked genetic diseases;
              (v) congenital anomalies;
              (vi) any other abnormalities or diseases
              as may be specified by the Central
              Supervisory Board;

              3. no pre-natal diagnostic techniques
              shall be used or conducted unless the
              person qualified to do so is satisfied for
              reasons to be recorded in writing that


                               Page 9 of 23
R/CR.RA/1354/2024                           JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




            any of the following conditions are
            fulfilled, namely:—
            (i) age of the pregnant woman is above
            thirty-five years;
            (ii) the pregnant woman has undergone
            of two or more spontaneous abortions or
            foetal loss;
            (iii) the pregnant woman had been
            exposed to potentially teratogenic agents
            such as drugs,
            radiation, infection or chemicals;
            (iv) the pregnant woman or her spouse
            has     a    family  history  of   mental
            retardation or physical
            deformities such as, spasticity or any
            other genetic disease;
            (v) any other condition as may be
            specified by the Central Supervisory
            Board;

            Provided that the person conducting
            ultrasonography on a pregnant woman
            shall keep complete record thereof in the
            clinic in such manner, as may be
            prescribed, and any deficiency or
            inaccuracy found therein shall amount to
            contravention of provisions of section 5
            or section 6 unless contrary is proved by
            the      person      conducting      such
            ultrasonography;

            4. no person including a relative or
            husband of the pregnant woman shall
            seek or encourage the con- duct of any
            pre-natal diagnostic techniques on her




                            Page 10 of 23
R/CR.RA/1354/2024                           JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




            except for the purposes specified in
            clause (2);

            5. no person including a relative or
            husband of a woman shall seek or
            encourage the conduct of any sex-
            selection technique on her or him or
            both.


            5. Written consent of pregnant woman
            and prohibition of communicating the sex
            of foetus.-
            (1) No person referred to in clause (2) of
            section 3 shall conduct the pre-natal
            diagnostic procedures
            unless—
            (a) he has explained all known side and
            after effects of such procedures to the
            pregnant woman concerned;
            (b) he has obtained in the prescribed
            form her written consent to undergo such
            procedures in the language which she
            understands; and
            (c) a copy of her written consent
            obtained under clause (b) is given to the
            pregnant woman.

            [(2) No person including the person
            conducting       pre-natal     diagnostic
            procedures shall communicate
            to the pregnant woman concerned or her
            relatives or any other person the sex of
            the foetus by
            words, signs or in any other manner.]




                            Page 11 of 23
  R/CR.RA/1354/2024                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




11.   Section 27 has made offence under the PC&PNDT Act
cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable. Reference of
Section 24 of the PC&PNDT Act, would be very much
necessary wherein the act provides for the presumption in
case of conduct of prenatal diagnostic techniques, where the
Court despite anything provided in the Indian Evidence Act
presumes that the pregnant woman was compelled by her
husband or other relatives as the case may be to undergo
prenatal diagnostic techniques, unless contrary is proved, for
the purposes other than those specified in Sub-section (2) of
Section 4 and those persons, i.e. the husband and relatives
would be made liable for the offences under Sub-section (3) of
Section 23 as an abettor.

12. In the case of Suo Motu v. State of Gujarat, reported in
2008 SCC On-Line Guj 294, the three Judges bench of this
Hon’ble Court answered the issues raised by learned single
Judge     in    the   References.   The        issues     raised      has     been
reproduced herein-below:


          “(i) Whether under the provisions of section 28 of the Pre-
              conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques
              (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, a Court can
              take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a
              complaint made by any officer authorised in this behalf
              by the Appropriate Authority?
          (ii) Whether the provisions of the proviso to sub-section
              (3) of section 4 of the PNDT Act require that the
              complaint should contain specific allegations regarding
              the contravention of the provisions of sections 5 and 6
              of the Act?
          (iii) Whether the burden lies on the authority to prove that



                               Page 12 of 23
  R/CR.RA/1354/2024                             JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




              there was contravention of the provisions of section 5 or
              6 of the PNDT Act?
          (iv) Whether any deficiency of inaccuracy in filing Form-F
             as required under the statutory provisions is merely a
             procedural lapse?”


12.1 After considering the issues, it had been answered in
Para 19 as under:
          “19. Upon above analysis and appreciation of the scheme
              and provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder,
              opinion on issues referred to the larger bench is as
              under:

          (i) Under the provisions of section 28 of the Pre-conception
              and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex
              Selection) Act, 1994 (“the PNDT Act”), a Court can take
              cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint
              made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the
              Appropriate Authority.
          (ii) The proviso to sub-section (3) of section 4 of the PNDT
              Act does not require that the complaint alleging
              inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in the
              prescribed manner should also contain allegation of
              contravention of the provisions of section 5 or 6 of the
              PNDT Act.
          (iii) In a case based upon allegation of deficiency or
               inaccuracy in maintenance of record in the prescribed
               manner as required under sub-section (3) of section 4
               of the PNDT Act, the burden to prove that there was
               contravention of the provisions of section 5 or 6 does
               not lie upon the prosecution.
          (iv) Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed
             under Rule 9 of the Rules made under the PNDT Act,
             being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the
             prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an
             independent offence amounting to contravention of the
             provisions of section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to
             be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however,
             mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining
             the requisite record may be as serious as violation of



                                Page 13 of 23
  R/CR.RA/1354/2024                               JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




              the provisions of section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court
              would be justified, while imposing punishment upon
              conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only
              technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filling up the
              forms. For example, not maintaining the record of
              conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all
              or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all
              seriousness as if the provisions of section 5 or 6 were
              violated, but incomplete details of the full name and
              address of the pregnant woman may be treated
              leniently if her identity and address were otherwise
              mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace
              her.
          (v) The judgment in Dr. Manish C. Dave v. State of Gujarat
             reported in 2008 (1) GLH 475 stands overruled to the
             extent it is inconsistent with the above opinion. The
             references stand disposed accordingly.”


13.   In the present matter, the issue raised by learned
Advocate       Mr.    Harshadkumar      Panchal   was     regarding       the
registration of the FIR where the learned Advocate submitted
that under no circumstances, an FIR can be registered before
the police under the PC&PNDT Act and the Police would have
no authority to file the charge-sheet under the IPC. The record
discloses the fact that the complaint was given by Sub-
Divisional Magistrate on 27.11.2012 before the police on the
basis of the decoy trap and and the de-facto complainant has
made a prayer to investigate and to take legal steps against
Bhagubhai Chaudhary. The allegation was also made of not
maintaining the record and details to identify the victims and
to trace them. The police had investigated the matter and had
recorded the statements of the witnesses and having found
the case under Sections 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 22, 23, 25 and 29 of
the PC&PNDT Act as well as Section 313 and 315 read with


                                Page 14 of 23
  R/CR.RA/1354/2024                               JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




114 of the IPC, had filed the charge-sheet against the accused.

14. In Rule 18A (3) (iv) of the PC&PNDT Act, it is laid down as
under:
              “(iv) as far as possible, not involve police for
              investigating cases under the Act as the
              cases under the Act are tried as complaint
              cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure,
              1973 (2 of 1974).”

14.1 The provision under the referred rule does not prohibit or
bar the involvement of police for investigating the case under
the PC&PNDT Act.


15.   The charge sheet was filed on the ground that the
pregnant patients present in the hospital, their sonography
was conducted to know the sex of the foetus for the sex
selection, without any consent of the woman. Further, no
names were recorded in the registers and (F) form were not
maintained and from the personal diary of the accused, it was
found that accused no.1 with the accused shown in column
no.2 of the charge-sheet without any consent, were examining
the foetus by sonography, by taking huge amount as fee, and
the foetus of female were terminated in abetment by the
accused.

15.1 After the complaint came to be filed, the police inquired
into the matter and recorded the statement of Niranjanbhai
Babubhai        Barot,       Rajeshkumar        Jaswantbhai         Dagbar,
Pratikkumar Rajubhai Chavda, Parulben d/o of Prabhudas
Chaturdas Patel, Chetankumar Mafatlal Patel, Vishnubhai


                                Page 15 of 23
  R/CR.RA/1354/2024                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




Ambalal Patel on 03.12.2012.

15.2 While statement of Ashwinbhai Bhimja Sawaliya (Patel),
Gauriben w/o Ashwinbhai Bhimja Sawaliya (Patel), Dhirenbhai
Maganbhai         Radadiya        (Patel),     Kajalben     w/o      Dhirenbhai
Maganbhai Radadiya (Patel), Shobhnaben w/o Sureshbhai
Ishwarbhai            Chaturdas     (Patel),        Sureshbhai       Ishwarbhai
Chaturdas (Patel), Jyotiben Ishwarbhai Chaturdas (Patel)
were recorded on 05.12.2012 and on 06.12.2012, statement
of Kailashben w/o of Nanjibhai Hansaji Prajapati was recorded.
The statements recorded on 05.12.2012 and 06.12.2012
became relevant for the charge-sheet which has been filed
against the accused present revisionist.

15.3 In the statement of witness Ashwinbhai Bhimja Sawaliya
(Patel), he has stated that on 27.11.2012, as wife suffered
sudden bleeding in her two months pregnancy, they had
visited the Sharda Maternity Hospital and had met the doctor
and after the sonography, the foetus was examined and the
witness was informed that the sex of the foetus was of female
and the doctor asked him to get it aborted and before they
could understand, the fee of Rs.3,000/- was recovered from
him in six currency notes in the denominations of Rs.500/- and
Rs.300/- as consultation fee. The witness has stated that no
written or oral consent was taken of his wife nor any signature
was taken on any paper or form. He has referred to this act by
the present revisionist with his son Dr. Hardik and one nurse.
The wife of Ashwinbhai i.e. Gauriben’s statement was also
recorded who has reiterated the same fact stating that no

                                    Page 16 of 23
  R/CR.RA/1354/2024                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




written or oral consent was taken for the termination of
pregnancy.

15.4    Dhirenbhai Maganbhai Radadiya (Patel) has also given
the similar facts against the accused and that the abortion was
directed on pre-natal determination of the sex of foetus
leading to female foeticide. The statement of Kajalben w/o
Dhirenbhai reaffirms the same fact. Even Shobhnaben w/o
Sureshbhai, who had come with the complaint of stomach pain
having one and half month pregnancy on sex determination by
way    of    sonography,   she    stated     that    before      she     could
understand, without any written or oral consent from her or
her husband and without filling up any form, the female foetus
was aborted.

15.5    Sureshbhai Patel had also visited the Sharda Maternity
Nursing home on 27.11.2012, he had come with his wife who
was carrying one and half month pregnancy with a complaint
of stomach pain. He has also stated about the foetus
examination and the fact of no oral or written consent given by
him or his wife, who further stated that prior to the raid, the
abortion was conducted and therefore, doctor had asked them
to leave the hospital secretly.

15.6 Jyotiben, the widow of Ishwarbhai Chaturdas, had gone
on 27.11.2012 along with her son and daughter-in-law, who
had the complaint of pain in the stomach and according to her
statement, without their consent in writing or in oral or
without the consent of the daughter-in-law, the abortion took


                             Page 17 of 23
  R/CR.RA/1354/2024                       JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




place. Even Kailashben w/o Nanjibhai, who was carrying four
months pregnancy, had visited the hospital on 27.11.2012
along with her husband and had met Dr. Bhagubhai Chaudary
the present revisionist, and after sonography, the doctor had
informed that it was a girl child, not properly developed and
therefore, the four months foetus was removed.


16.   Section 28 of PC&PNDT Act approves of the cognizance of
the offence by the Court under the PC&PNDT Act only on the
complaint made by the appropriate authority. The police had
found the case under Section 313 and 315 of IPC read with
Section 114 during the investigation, the police had found the
offence as provided under the IPC. The maintainability of the
FIR invoking the section of IPC along with the sections of
PC&PNDT Act could be well-explained by the analogous
comparison of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation Act, 1957), where the Hon’ble
Supreme Court had the opportunity to deal with it with similar
type of aspect of registration of the complaint before the
police.


17.   In the case of Jayant and others vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (2021) 2 SCC 670, it was observed with respect to
the provision of Section 22 which approves for the cognizance
of the offence under Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) (for short, ‘MMDR’ Act), 1957 only upon complaint
in writing by the person authorized on behalf of the Central
Government or the State Government, where in too, FIR filed


                          Page 18 of 23
  R/CR.RA/1354/2024                             JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




under sections of IPC was put to question.

17.1 Section 22 of the MMDR Act would be relevant to refer
for aborting the analysis. Thus, Section 22 is reproduced
herein-under:


              “22. Cognizance of offences.―No court shall
              take cognizance of any offence punishable
              under this Act or any rules made thereunder
              except upon complaint in writing made by a
              person authorised in this behalf by the
              Central    Government      or   the   State
              Government.”



18. In the case of Jayant (supra) it was further held as under:

              “21. After giving our thoughtful consideration
              in the matter, in the light of the relevant
              provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules
              made thereunder vis-à-vis the Code of
              Criminal Procedure and the Penal Code, and
              the law laid down by this Court in the cases
              referred to herein-above and for the reasons
              stated herein-above, our conclusions are as
              under:

              21.1. That the learned Magistrate can in
              exercise of powers under Section 156(3) of
              the Code order/direct the In-charge/SHO of
              the police station concerned to lodge/register
              crime case/FIR even for the offences under
              the MMDR Act and the Rules made
              thereunder and at this stage the bar under
              Section 22 of the MMDR Act shall not be
              attracted.




                                Page 19 of 23
R/CR.RA/1354/2024                               JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




            21.2. The bar under Section 22 of the MMDR
            Act shall be attracted only when the learned
            Magistrate takes cognizance of the offences
            under the MMDR Act and the Rules made
            thereunder     and    orders   issuance   of
            process/summons for the offences under the
            MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder.

            21.3. For commission of the offence under
            IPC, on receipt of the police report, the
            Magistrate having jurisdiction can take
            cognizance of the said offence without
            awaiting the receipt of complaint that may
            be filed by the authorised officer for taking
            cognizance in respect of violation of various
            provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules
            made thereunder.

            21.4. That in respect of violation of various
            provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules
            made thereunder, when a Magistrate passes
            an order under Section 156(3) of the Code
            and directs the In-charge/SHO of the police
            station concerned to register/lodge the crime
            case/FIR in respect of the violation of various
            provisions of the Act and the Rules made
            thereunder and thereafter after investigation
            the      In-charge       of       the     police
            station/investigating     officer     concerned
            submits a report, the same can be sent to
            the Magistrate concerned as well as to the
            authorised officer concerned as mentioned in
            Section 22 of the MMDR Act and thereafter
            the authorised officer concerned may file the
            complaint before the learned Magistrate
            along with the report submitted by the
            investigating    officer     concerned      and
            thereafter it will be open for the learned
            Magistrate to take cognizance after following


                              Page 20 of 23
  R/CR.RA/1354/2024                             JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




              due procedure, issue process/summons in
              respect of the violations of the various
              provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules
              made thereunder and at that stage it can be
              said that cognizance has been taken by the
              learned Magistrate.

              21.5. In a case where the violator is
              permitted to compound the offences on
              payment of penalty as per sub-section (1) of
              Section 23-A, considering sub-section (2) of
              Section 23-A of the MMDR Act, there shall
              not   be    any   proceedings    or   further
              proceedings against the offender in respect
              of the offences punishable under the MMDR
              Act or any Rules made thereunder so
              compounded. However, the bar under sub-
              section (2) of Section 23-A shall not affect
              any proceedings for the offences under IPC,
              such as, Sections 379 and 414 IPC and the
              same shall be proceeded with further.”



18.1 As noted under para 21.3 of the judgment referred of
Jayant (supra) for the commission of offence under IPC, the
Magistrate having jurisdiction can take the cognizance of the
said offence without awaiting for the complaint of the
authorised person under the MMDR Act.


19.   Section 24 of the         PC&PNDT Act draws presumption
against the husband and relatives and it would be considered
that the husband or any other relative as the case may be,
had compelled the pregnant woman to undergo prenatal
diagnostic techniques for the purposes other than those
specified in sub-section (2) of Section 4 and such person


                               Page 21 of 23
  R/CR.RA/1354/2024                        JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




would be liable for the abetment of offence under sub-section
(3) of Section 23. The Court concerned can verify the facts of
the case on the private complaint filed under PC&PNDT Act,
but, here in this case, the matter was lodged on the basis of
decoy trap where there would not be any case of drawing
presumption under Section 24 of the PC&PNDT Act for the
decoy witness, however, the I.O has, on the investigation by
the private complaint, had recorded the statements of the
other women who were there on that day and the husbands
and the relatives concerned who had brought pregnant woman
and the I.O had found that the pregnant women were
subjected to miscarriage without their consent and therefore
found the present revisionist liable for the offence under
Section 313 and 315 of the IPC, where the doctor has been
alleged of causing miscarriage without woman’s consent with
an intention to prevent the child from being born alive, without
any good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.
The provision under Section 313 and 315 read with Section
114 of the IPC has been independently lodged by the I.O.


20.   Here in this matter, the appropriate authority can file a
complaint for the offence punishable under PC&PNDT Act. The
trial would be before Metropolitan Magistrate of Judicial
Magistrate First Class as provided under sub-section (2) of
Section 28 of the PC&PNDT Act.


21.   During the course of investigation on the complaint by
the appropriate authority to take action, some crime under IPC



                           Page 22 of 23
        R/CR.RA/1354/2024                                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026




   gets detected, the police would have the independent authority
   to investigate the case and file the chargesheet under IPC.
   Nothing provided in the PC&PNDT Act would debar the police
   to investigate the matter under IPC, to file charge-sheet.


   21.1 In the present case, the charge-sheet is filed under
   PC&PNDT Act and IPC. The sections under PC&PNDT Act would
   be triable by the Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate
   First Class, having the territorial jurisdiction to the private
   complaint of the person authorized under Section 28 of
   PC&PNDT Act. Sections 313, 315 are cognizable, non-bailable
   offence and tried by the Court of Sessions.


   22.       Hence, the Magistrate before whom the charge-sheet
   would have been filed would have to commit the case to the
   Sessions Court, where the Sessions Court would only have the
   jurisdiction to try the accused under Sections 313, 315 read
   with Section 114 of the IPC and not under the PC&PNDT Act.


   22.1 The Court before which the charge-sheet has been filed
   would have to direct the authority concerned to file a private
   complaint under PC&PNDT Act for the sections invoked, in case
   no such private complaint has been filed.


   22.2 In view of the above observation and direction, the
   present application stands disposed off, as rejected.



                                                                                                    Sd/-
                                                                                           (GITA GOPI,J)
   PARMAR KRISH/1
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PARMAR KRISH(HC02348), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 06/04/2026 15:30:11


                                                   Page 23 of 23