Judgment 1 J-APL No.1678.2024.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1678 OF 2024 1) Kisan s/o Haribhau Garad, Aged 34 years, Occ. Agriculturist, R/o. R/o. Karanji, Tah.-Risod, Dist.- Washim. 2) Ganesh s/o Shivaji Sultane, Aged 26 years, Occ. Labour, R/o. Gunjekhed, Tah.-Lonar, Dist.- Buldhana. 3) Vinod s/o Waman Thokal, Aged 38 years, Occ. Labour, R/o. Kanaka, Tah.-Mehkar, Dist.- Buldhana. …. APPLICANTS // VERSUS // 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station Mehkar, Tah.-Mehkar, Dist.- Buldhana. 2) Dr. Swapnil s/o Ramchandra Chauhan, Aged 42 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Mehkar, Tah.- Mehkar, Dist.- Buldhana. …. N ON-APPLICANTS _____________________________________________________________ Mr. S. V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for applicants. Mr. N. H. Joshi, Additional Public Prosecutor for non- applicant No.1/State. Ms. Kirti Deshpande, Advocate (appointed) for non-applicant No.2. _____________________________________________________________ CORAM : M.W. CHANDWANI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 23, 2026 2026:BHC-NAG:12728-DB Judgment 2 J-APL No.1678.2024.odt ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The applicants seek quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) No.490/2024, dated 03.08.2024, registered with Police Station, Mehkar, District Buldhana for the offences punishable under Sections 18(1), 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3A, 3B, 4(1), 4(2), 5(1)(a), 5(1)(b), 5(1)(c), 5(2), 6(a), 6(b) and 6(c) of the Pre-Conception And Pre- Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition Of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (for short the “PC & PNDT Act) as well as Sections 33 and 36 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961. 3. The FIR indicates that on receipt of secret information, a raid was conducted by the officials of the District General Hospital, Buldhana and Rural Hospital, Mahkar along with panchas and Police officials in a house at Mehkar by sending a decoy customer for identification of sex, where the applicants were found indulging in the activities of illegal sex determination. Accordingly, articles were seized from the spot and seizure panchnama was prepared in presence of the panchas. Thereafter, on complaint of non-applicant No.2, the aforesaid offences came to be registered against the applicants. Judgment 3 J-APL No.1678.2024.odt 4. The contention is that the offence under the provisions of the PC & PNDT Act is non-cognizable and only a complaint filed by the appropriate authority is maintainable. It is also contended that a separate complaint has been lodged by the appropriate authority under the relevant provisions of the PC & PNDT Act as well as the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 in respect of the same incident, which is pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mehkar. Therefore, the present FIR does not stand and is required to be quashed. 5. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & another vs. Brij Pal Singh and another, (2026 SCC OnLine SC 1673), while answering the reference in para 11, has held as under : Per : Sanjay Karol J: “11. Although we have extracted the questions referred to us in paragraph 2, for the sake of completion we may reproduce them here also. Question 1 – Whether, for offences under the PC & PNDT Act, the registration of FIR at the police station is permissible, merely because the offences under the PC & PNDT Act have been made cognizable and non-bailable? Answer 1 – The language of the statute, more particularly Sections 27 and 28 of the Act when read together, in light of the other provisions and the socially beneficial nature of the Act as also the requirement of sensitivity along with medical and technical know-how, indicates that the police are not meant to be the investigators for the Judgment 4 J-APL No.1678.2024.odt purpose of this Act. This is further made clear by the fact that an FIR once registered cannot be taken to its logical conclusion as per the procedures of this Act. The restriction applies only to offences under this Act and does not restrict the police’s power to investigate or prosecute independent offences disclosed under substantive criminal law (IPC/BNS). Question 2 – Whether the police investigation is permissible for the offences under the PC & PNDT Act? And who can investigate the complaints, received for violation of the provisions of the PC & PNDT Act? Answer 2 - Section 17(4) of the Act, while describing the functions of the AA, clearly states that investigating the complaints is its responsibility. Rule 18A(3)(iv), which has statutory force, also requires that recourse to the police be avoided “as far as possible”. It necessarily has to be concluded, therefore, that the police cannot be the main investigating authority. At best, the police may play a supplemental role, as and when required by the AA under its supervision. Question 3 – Whether on the chargesheet submitted after the investigation by the police, the competent magistrate can take cognizance of the offence under the PC & PNDT Act? Answer 3 – Section 28 of the Act envisions a complete statutory embargo on the taking of cognizance except in situations and scenarios provided thereunder. The answer has to be clear. The competent Magistrate shall not be able to take cognizance upon the filing of a chargesheet.” Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh also concurred with the view expressed by Justice Sanjay Karol in the same decision by making separate observations. Judgment 5 J-APL No.1678.2024.odt 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that though, the FIR has been lodged by the police authority, the police has handed over all the papers to the appropriate authority for lodging a complaint. 7. In these circumstances, the present FIR registered by the police is in contravention with the provisions of the PC & PNDT Act and does not stand, since the offences under the provisions of the PC & PNDT Act are non-cognizable. It is to be mentioned that a complaint has already been filed by the appropriate authority under the PC & PNDT Act as well as the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 on the same incident which is pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mehkar. Needless to mention that quashing of this FIR will not effect the complaint pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mehkar. 8. In view of the above, a case is made out for exercising the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the FIR. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order : (i) The Criminal Application is allowed. Judgment 6 J-APL No.1678.2024.odt (ii) FIR No.490/2024, dated 03.08.2024, registered with Police Station, Mehkar, District Buldhana for the offences punishable under Sections 18(1), 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3A, 3B, 4(1), 4(2), 5(1)(a), 5(1)(b), 5(1)(c), 5(2), 6(a), 6(b) and 6(c) of the Pre-Conception And Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition Of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 as well as Sections 33 and 36 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961, is hereby quashed and set aside against all the applicants. (iii) Fees of the learned counsel appointed to represent non- applicant No.2 be quantified and paid as per relevant rules. Needless to mention here that learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mehkar shall decide the pending complaint on its own merits. 9. The criminal application is disposed of. (M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) Kirtak Signed by: Mr. B.J. Kirtak Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 24/09/2026 19:24:10