In a recent development at the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Chandigarh, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar presiding over the case of Dr. Rachna Raina versus the State of Haryana (CRM-M No.1120 of 2023), dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking the quashing of FIR No.117 dated 06.02.2022. The FIR was registered under Sections 29, 5 (2), 6 (b) of the Preconception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 (PNDT Act) and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Krishna Gate, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.
The case pertained to allegations of illegal sex determination practices carried out at a private hospital, Sparsh Surgical Laparoscopic and Maternity Hospital, Kurukshetra, allegedly run by Dr. Rachna Raina. The petition sought to invalidate the FIR and subsequent proceedings, contending that under Section 28 of the PNDT Act, only a complaint by the Appropriate Authority or an authorized officer could initiate a prosecution under the Act, and hence, an FIR could not be registered under its provisions.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the provisions of the PNDT Act override those of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing that a police report (FIR) couldn’t be filed under the PNDT Act. The counsel further relied on legal precedents, citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Delhi Administration vs. Ram Singh AIR 1962 SC 63 to support the exclusivity of investigation by authorized personnel under a special law.
However, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, while acknowledging the gravity of gender bias and the societal implications of selective abortions, emphasized the legislative intent behind the PNDT Act, highlighting the Act’s aim to address gender inequality and ensure gender justice. Citing the Supreme Court’s observation in Federation of Obstetrics and
Gynecological Societies of India v. Union of India and others (2019) 6 SCC 283, Justice Brar underscored the Act’s significance in curbing sex selective practices.
In the verdict, Justice Brar rejected the petition’s plea, stating that at the investigation stage, intervention by the court wasn’t warranted. The Court clarified that while cognizance of the offence under the PNDT Act hadn’t been taken yet, the ongoing investigation was permissible. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the FIR and the continuation of subsequent legal proceedings.
Written by Samruddhi Kulkarni from ILS Law College pune, intern under legal vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments