- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3276 CRL.P No. 100026 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100026 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: DR. SHIVALINGAPPA @ SHIVAKUMAR K. MAIGUR AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. DOCTOR, BANSHANKARI HOSPITAL, IB. ROAD GALGALI-587116, TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N.L.BATAKURKI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DR. B.R.PATTANASHETTI, AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. FWO/ DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICE BAGALKOT, R/O. BAGALKOT-587103, TQ. DIST. BAGALKOT, REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ADMIT THE PETITION AND QUASH THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUE OF PROCESS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/ORDER 22, 23 OF PC AND PNDT ACT AND U/S 19 OF KMPE ACT (AMENDMENT) 2017 BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AN DJMFC, BILAGI IN CC NO.32/2024 (P.C. NO.20/2024) DATED 14.02.2024 AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.20 16:40:04 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3276 CRL.P No. 100026 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner, who is being prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 22 and 23 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex-Selection) Act, 1994 (“the Act, 1994”) and Section 19 of the Karnataka Medical Private Establishments Act, 2017 (“KPME Act”), has approached this Court seeking relief. 2. The respondent, the District Health and Family Welfare Officer, filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., stating that upon receiving information regarding violations of the Act, 1994 by the petitioner, an inspection was conducted on 22.01.2024. It was discovered that the petitioner had contravened Sections 4, 5, 18, and 29 of the Act, 1994, along with Rules 8, 9, 10, 17, and 18 framed thereunder. Additionally, the scanning center’s license had not been renewed, proper registers and records were not maintained, and the personnel working at the center were not displaying their names and identities as required under the Act, 1994. The petitioner/accused did not respond to the show-cause notice. Furthermore, the accused allegedly conducted scans on pregnant women without the requisite referral slips or ‘F’ forms. Upon reviewing the complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offences. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent is not the “appropriate authority” as required under the Act, 1994, nor is he an officer authorized by the Central or State Government. Consequently, the cognizance taken by the learned - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3276 CRL.P No. 100026 of 2025 Magistrate based on a complaint filed by an incompetent person lacks authority and vitiates the proceedings. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on decisions of a coordinate bench of this Court in Dhondiba Anna Jadhav & Another v. The State of Karnataka and Smt. Aruna Kottur Basappa Akki v. State of Karnataka & Another. 4. In response, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent/State contended that while the complainant may not be the “appropriate authority” as defined under the Act, 1994, the designated authority had delegated his powers to the complainant. On this basis, the complaint was maintained, making it valid. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate rightly took cognizance of the offences, and the petition should be dismissed. 5. The issue involved in this case was examined by a coordinate bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.101547/2021, disposed of on 28.11.2023. While considering the provisions of Sections 17, 17(1)(a), the notification dated 15.10.2011, and Section 28 of the Act, 1994, the coordinate bench held that Section 28 of the Act, 1994 mandates that no court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except upon a complaint made by the appropriate authority or an officer authorized in this regard by the Central or State Government. 6. The respondent is not an appropriate authority appointed under Section 17 of the Act, 1994, as the power in this regard has been delegated to the Assistant Commissioner, who is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3276 CRL.P No. 100026 of 2025 the designated authority. In the absence of any provision allowing sub-delegation of this power by the Assistant Commissioner to the respondent/complainant, the complaint lacks authority and is therefore not maintainable. 7. Furthermore, Section 19A of the KPME Act states that no court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except upon a written complaint by the Registration and Grievance Redressal Authority or an officer authorized by it. In the present case, the complaint was not filed by the appropriate authority, i.e., the Registration and Grievance Redressal Authority, or any officer authorized in this regard. Therefore, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for an alleged contravention of Section 19 of the KPME Act also stands vitiated. In such circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C. No. 32/2024 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Bilagi, are hereby quashed. 9. Any pending applications, if any, are disposed of as not surviving for consideration. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR CT:VH List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1