Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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