Mere Unwanted Staring At A Woman's Chest In Office Does Not Constitute Voyeurism Under Section 354-C IPC: Bombay High Court State Cannot Justify Espionage FIR Based Solely On Custodial Disclosure Without Corroborative Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Mere Issuance Of Letter Of Intent Without Formal Work Order Does Not Create Concluded Contract Or Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Modify Terms Of Compromise Decree Merely Because Implementation Is Impracticable: Supreme Court Adjudicating Authority Only Needs To Check For 'Plausible' Pre-Existing Dispute Under Section 9 IBC, Not Its Success On Merits: Supreme Court Arguing Against Settled Law To Show Skill Wastes Court Time; Giving Up Such Arguments A Professional Virtue: Supreme Court Limitation Under Section 468 CrPC Is Computed From Date Of Filing Complaint, Not Date Of Cognizance: Supreme Court MSCS Act | Co-operative Society Can't Acquire Corporate Debtor Under IBC If Not In 'Same Line Of Business' As Per Its Bye-Laws: Supreme Court Multi-State Co-op Societies Can Only Invest In Entities With Substantially Similar Core Business Under Bye-Laws: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Usurp Governor's Statutory Discretion To Grant Extraordinary Pension Under 1981 Rules: Supreme Court Litigants Can Challenge Non-Appealable Interlocutory Orders In Final Appeal Under Section 105 CPC: Supreme Court Plaintiff Cannot File Fresh Suit For Title If Relief Was Omitted In Earlier Injunction Suit Arising From Same Dispute: Supreme Court Plaintiff's Failure To Enter Witness Box Draws Rebuttable Presumption, Not Fatal To Suit If Rebutted By Cogent Evidence: Supreme Court Sale Deeds Executed During Pendency Of Specific Performance Suit Hit By Doctrine Of Lis Pendens: Supreme Court EWS Certificates Must Relate To Correct Financial Year; Courts Should Not Routinely Interfere In Online Recruitment Rejections: Supreme Court Court Can Lift 'Veil Of Partnership' To Evict Tenants Using Reconstitution As Cloak For Unlawful Sub-Letting: Supreme Court State Cannot Fix Lower Dearness Relief Rate For Pensioners Than Dearness Allowance For Serving Employees: Supreme Court Prolonged Separation Indicates Matrimonial Bond Broken Beyond Repair: Supreme Court Upholds Divorce Over Wife's Cruelty Right To Contest Elections Distinct From Right To Vote, Co-Operative Societies Can Set Threshold Eligibility Conditions: Supreme Court Court Can Draw Adverse Inference Against Party Withholding Best Evidence, Has No Duty To Seek Production: Supreme Court Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court

Offence Converted from Murder to Culpable Homicide: Apex Court Alters Conviction Under IPCOffence Converted from Murder to Culpable Homicide: Apex Court Alters Conviction Under IPC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Allahabad High Court, in a significant judgment, has underscored the importance of statutory compliance in the filing of complaints under the Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. The court allowed an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to quash an order and the proceedings against Dr. Vinod Kumar Bassi in a case alleging violation of the said Act.

The legal crux of the judgment revolves around the interpretation of Sections 3, 17, 23, and 28 of the Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994. The primary question was whether the Additional Chief Medical Officer, who initiated the complaint, qualified as the ‘appropriate authority’ as prescribed under the Act.

Dr. Bassi was accused of violating the provisions of the Act in his diagnostic centre. The complaint was filed by the Additional Chief Medical Officer, Hardoi. The applicant challenged the competency of the officer to file such a complaint, stating that as per the Act, only a complaint made by the ‘appropriate authority’ is cognizable.

Incompetence of Complainant: The court observed that the Additional Chief Medical Officer is not the ‘appropriate authority’ as defined under the Act. This designation, according to a government notification, lies with the District Magistrate.

Jurisdictional Competence: Analyzing Section 28, the court emphasized that courts can only take cognizance of offences under the Act on a complaint made by the designated appropriate authority. Since the Additional Chief Medical Officer did not fit this criterion, the complaint was deemed incompetent.

Statutory Compliance: The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to the procedural and substantive stipulations of the Act. The court stressed that legal actions under such specialized legislation must strictly follow statutory mandates.

Decision: In light of these observations, the Allahabad High Court allowed the application, quashing both the order dated 03.06.2014 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 4495 of 2011. The court’s decision reinforces the principle that legal proceedings must align with the precise requirements of the relevant legislation.

Date of Decision: March 22, 2024

Dr. Vinod Kumar Bassi Vs. The State Of U.P And Anr.

Latest Legal News