Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: 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