Anita Chaudhry, J.This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the complaint and the summoning order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad in a complaint filed under Pre-conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (here-in-after referred as PNDT Act). Few facts which have been given rise to the complaint may now be noticed:-

2. A complaint under the PNDT Act was filed by the State through the Civil Surgeon, (Sic) containing allegations that M/s. Mog(Sic) Nursing Home in Faridabad was registered ultrasound centre and they had got themselves registered upto 17.9.2006. The registration was subsequently renewed upto 17.9.2011. This Nursing Home was inspected by a team headed by the Civil Surgeon and others on 12.5.2012 and certain contraventions were noticed, the registration of the ultrasound centre had expired, no records were being maintained with respect to the Nursing Home or the ultrasound centre which was required under the Act and the Rules and lastly that no correspondence or reporting was being done by the Nursing Home to the District appropriate authority. After the inspection, the ultrasound machine was sealed. Subsequently a show cause notice under Section 20(1) of the PNDT Act was given to the petitioners to explain as to why the registration of the ultrasound clinic should not be cancelled. Reply to the show cause notice was sent by the petitioner. Thereafter, a personal hearing was accorded. Subsequently, a complaint was filed where reference to the inspection, findings, notice and the reply was made. It referred to the over all decrease of females in Haryana and that the sex ratio in Haryana had declined from 820 females per 1000 males in the year 2001 as compared to the census of 1991 where the ratio was 879 as to 1000. Allegations were levelled that the accused had contravened the following provisions of the PNDT Act.

1) Section 6(a), 6(b) and 6(c) of the Act, punishable under Section 23 read with Section 22 and 25 of the Act,

2) Section 5(1) and 5(2) of the Act read with Rule 10 under PNDT Rules 1996 punishable under Section 23 read with Section 22 and 25 of the Act,

3) Section 4(1), 4(2), 4(3) of the Act punishable under Section 23 read with Section 22 and 25 of the Act,

4) Section 29 read with Rule 9 and 10 under PNDT Rules and is punishable under Section 23 read with Section 22 and 25 of the Act.

3. In the end, it was stated that the complainant was competent to lodge a complaint under Section 28(1)(a) of the PNDT Act and prayed for summoning of the accused.

4. The trial Court passed the following summoning order:

"Complaint presented today. It be checked and registered. Since the complainant is a public servant and has filed the present complaint in discharge of his official duty, recording the statement of accused dispensed with. From the perusal of documents on record and after hearing the counsel for complainant, a prima facie case under Section 28 of PNDT Act is made out against the accused. Therefore, accused be summoned for 26.10.2012.

At this stage, an application seeking exemption from personal appearance on behalf of complainant also moved. Heard. Since the complainant is a public servant and has to discharge multifarious duties, therefore, personal appearance of complainant is dispenses with and his counsel shall appear in the Court on each and every date of hearing."

5. While issuing notice in this petition, the trial Court was directed to adjourn the case beyond the date fixed and the case is being adjourned and the trial could not commence.

6. Reply was filed by the State wherein they pleaded that petition was an abuse of process of law and the petitioner had been summoned under various sections referred in their petition and the petition had been filed to delay the appearance in the Court. It is pleaded that the case was being adjourned by the C.J.M. for awaiting orders of the Court and the proceedings had been stayed. It was pleaded that the petitioner had not got the licence renewed after 17.09.2011 and the Nursing Home was being run without renewal. Respondents had referred to the findings recorded during inspection and sealing of the ultrasound machine. It was pleaded that show cause notice was given and reply was considered and, thereafter, a complaint was filed. It was pleaded that from the facts and circumstances, it was evident that the accused were indulging in performing ultrasonography on pregnant mothers and purposely they were not maintaining the record and the complaint could not be quashed at the threshold and as it was a case of violation of the Act, the issues were to be examined by the trial Court after a trial.

7. I have heard both the sides.

8. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the allegations made by the complainant were that the licence had not been renewed but they had sent their response vide Annexure P-5 and had requested for renewal of the registration and had also given the reason why they could not apply in time and it was on account of marriage of their daughter and no complaint could have been filed and the complainant has levelled allegations which did not find mention in the inspection note. It was submitted that there was no material to support the allegations made in the complaint. It was urged that no decoy customer was sent, therefore, provisions of Section 28 of PNDT Act was not attracted and it was a case of non-application of mind. It was urged that when a licence has been applied for and it is not rejected then it is a case of deemed renewal and no presumption can be raised against the petitioners that they were carrying sex determination test in the clinic.

9. On the other hand it was contended that the petition for quashing was not maintainable as there are allegations and the requirement of law and rules is that they must apply for renewal before expiry and they were required to maintain record at the ultrasound centre and Nursing Home was not reporting the cases to the District appropriate authority and it was a case of violation and the question whether there can be any presumption against the accused is for the Court to decide after the evidence is led. It was urged that by inadvertence, the C.J.M. had referred to Section 28 of the PNDT Act and that is the Section under which a complaint can be filed but the body of the complaint refers to the various sections which had been violated but that would not be a ground to set aside the order.

10. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the complaint on the plea that the complaint did not disclose any offence. The main plank of the argument is that the complainant did not refer to any material to show that pre-natal tests were being conducted and the ultrasound machines were being used for the illegal act.

11. The petitioners could not have been mislead as the section mentioned in the summoning order had been wrongly mentioned. The body of the complaint refers to the sections under which the accused were being summoned. The petitioners have the copy of the complaint with them and they are aware of the provisions which they are said to have violated.

12. It has not been disputed that the petitioner did not have any licence when the premises were inspected. The old licence had expired on 17.9.2011.

13. In State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , the Honble Apex Court had examined the powers of the Court for quashing the complaints and the F.I.Rs. and had held that the purpose for exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the F.I.R. or a complaint, the High Court had to proceed on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint and that it had no jurisdiction to examine the correctness and otherwise of the allegations. After going through the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as a series of decision relating to the exercise of the extra ordinary power under Section 226 and the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it laid the following principles:

1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

4) Where the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S. 155(2) of the Code.

5) Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

14. In Lakhwant Singh v. Jasbir Singh & Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 281 of 2003 decided on 16.09.2008 : 2008 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 545, Honble Apex Court had held that exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was an exception and not the rule. It was held that it saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code.

15. The three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction can be exercised, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. While exercising powers under the Section, the Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the Section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. In exercise of the powers the Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. In R.P. Kapur Vs. The State of Punjab, , Honble Apex Court summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings.

i. where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;

ii. where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;

iii. where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.

16. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are wide but have to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. It is not proper for the High Court to analyse the case in the light of probabilities. The complaint cannot be said to be frivolous or vexatious. It discloses the ingredients of an offence, therefore, there is no justification for interference. It is the material which would come before the Court which will decide the fate of the petitioners. The Court cannot quash a complaint at the threshold when it discloses an offence. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised in this case and the inevitable conclusion is that there is no merit in the petition. The petition is dismissed.