HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying for quashing of FIR No.553 dated 13.12.2020, registered under Section 23 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 ( for short Act) and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Palam Vihar, District Gurugram, along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The FIR was registered on the complaint of Dr. Anil Gupta Medical Officer-cum-Nodal Officer under the, Office of Civil Surgeon Gurugram submitted to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Palam Vihar, Gurugram. As per the allegations in the FIR on 13.12.2020 a secret information was received by District Appropriate Authority-cum- Civil Surgeon, PC&PNDT Gurugram that a sex determination racket was being run by one Smt.Pinki @ Roma Devi at Dr.Rao's clinic, Kapashera Mor, New Delhi. On receipt of this information the District Appropriate Authoritycum- Civil Surgeon, PC&PNDT Gurugram constituted a team comprising Dr.Anil Gupta, PNDT Nodal Officer-cum-Medical Officer, Gurugram (complainant/respondent No.2), Amandeep Chauhan, Drugs Control Officer, Gurugram, Dr.Harish Kumar, Medical Officer, Gurugram, Dr.Dipanshu, Medical Officer, Gurugram, Subhash Sharma, Clerk in the office of Civil Surgeon, Gurugram. Police help was also taken and Parambir Singh HC and Somvati LHC joined the team. Thereafter, informer Pawan contacted Pinki @ Roma Devi on her mobile phone for getting a sex determination test on a pregnant lady. Pinki @ Roma Devi asked the informer to bring Rs.50,000/- on 13.12.2020 at 10.30 AM for sex determination of the foetus. Thereafter, Kanchan (who gave her name as Pinky w/o Pawan to the petitioner) w/o Karan was approached by the raiding team to act as a decoy patient.. The informer was given Rs.50,000/- to be handed over to Pinki @ Roma Devi for sex determination on 13.12.2020. Serial Numbers of all the currency notes were noted. On 13.12.2020, the decoy patient (Kanchan) and the informer Pawan left for Dr.Rao's clinic, Palam Vihar at 10 AM on their private vehicle bearing No.HR-55-AH-4970. They were followed by the raiding team in another car. After reaching the clinic at 10.30 AM, Hareram Mandal, husband of Pinki @ Roma Devi came outside to the decoy patient and the informer and sat in their car. The informer told the raiding team that the amount of Rs.50,000/- was received by the husband of Pinki @ Roma Devi, who took the decoy patient and the informer to M/s Mantracare X-Ray and Diagnostic Centre, Gurugram. The decoy patient, the informer and Hareram Mandal went inside the Centre and came out after two hours. Then all three went back to Dr.Rao's clinic, where the raiding team was waiting. On reaching Dr.Rao's clinic, the informer asked Pinki @ Roma Devi about the sex of the foetus, upon which Pinki @ Roma Devi called the petitioner on her mobile phone and then disclosed the foetus as 'female' to the informer. On such disclosure, the members of the raiding team, except Dr.Anil Gupta – respondent No.2 and Amandeep Chauhan immediately apprehended Pinki @ Roma Devi and her husband Hareram Mandal at Dr.Rao's clinic and recovered Rs.34,000/- from Hareram Mandal which were the same which had been given to the informer. After the said recovery, the raiding team informed Dr.Anil Gupta and Amandeep Chauhan, who were waiting outside M/s Mantracare X-Ray and Diagnostic Centre Gurugram. As the Centre was closed for the day, they both called husband of the petitioner Dr.Sumit Singhal on his mobile phone and requested him to conduct a kidney ultrasound of Dr.Anil Gupta. When Dr.Sumit Singhal opened the Centre and conducted the ultrasound of Dr.Anil Gupta, the raiding Team immediately reached at the Centre from Dr.Rao's clinic and apprehended the petitioner and recovered Rs.16,000/- from her which were the same that had been given to the informer.

3. Form F was checked. It was found that without any details of the identity proof of the patient ultrasound was conducted by the petitioner which is violation of Rule 9. The PNDT Register had an entry in the name of Pinki w/o Pawan (informer). Form F had a referral of Dr. Rao's Clinic which had been given by Pinki @ Roma Devi in the name of Dr. (Mrs.) S. Rao.

4. Mr. Sartej Singh Narula Ld. counsel for the petitioner has primarily contended that as per the provisions of the an FIR for an offence under the cannot be registered except on the complaint of the duly notified District Appropriate Authority (DAA)- which is a body comprising of three members. The constitution of the Authority is specified in Section 17 of thewhich is as under:

Section 17. Appropriate Authority and Advisory Committee

17. Appropriate Authority and Advisory Committee.—(1) The Central Government shall appoint, by notification in the Official Gazette, one or more Appropriate Authorities for each of the Union Territories for the purposes of this Act.

(2) The State Government shall appoint, by notification in the Official Gazette, one or more Appropriate Authorities for the whole or part of the State for the purposes of this Act having regard to the intensity of the problem of pre-natal sex determination leading to female foeticide.

(3) The officers appointed as Appropriate Authorities under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be,—

[(a) when appointed for the whole of the State or the Union Territory, consisting of the following three members—

(i) an officer of or above the rank of the Joint Director of Health and Family Welfare—Chairperson;

(ii) an eminent woman representing womens organisation; and

(iii) an officer of Law Department of the State or the Union Territory concerned:

Provided that it shall be the duty of the State or the Union Territory concerned to constitute multi-member State or Union territory level Appropriate Authority within three months of the coming into force of the Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Amendment Act, 2002:

Provided further that any vacancy occurring therein shall be filled within three months of the occurrence.]

(b) when appointed for any part of the State or the Union Territory, of such other rank as the State Government or the Central Government, as the case may be, may deem fit.

(4) The Appropriate Authority shall have the following functions, namely:—

(a) to grant, suspend or cancel registration of a Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic;

(b) to enforce standards prescribed for the Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory and Genetic Clinic;

(c) to investigate complaints of breach of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder and take immediate action; and

(d) to seek and consider the advise of the Advisory Committee, constituted under sub-section (5), on application for registration and on complaints for suspension or cancellation of registration;

[(e) to take appropriate legal action against the use of any sex selection technique by any person at any place, suo motu or brought to its notice and also to initiate independent investigations in such matter;

(f) to create public awareness against the practice of sex selection or pre-natal determination of sex;

(g) to supervise the implementation of the provisions of the and rules;

(h) to recommend to the Board and State Boards modifications required in the rules in accordance with changes in technology or social conditions;

(i) to take action on the recommendations of the Advisory Committee made after investigation of complaint for suspension or cancellation of registration.]

28. Cognizance of offences.—(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a complaint made by—

(a) the Appropriate Authority concerned, or any officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, or the Appropriate Authority; or

(b) a person who has given notice of not less than 1[fifteen] days in the manner prescribed, to the Appropriate Authority, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint to the court.

Explanation.—For the purpose of this clause, person includes a social organisation.

(2) No court other than that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act.

(3) Where a complaint has been made under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the court may, on demand by such person, direct the Appropriate Authority to make available copies of the relevant records in its possession to such person.

1. Whether FIR for the offences committed under this Act can be registered on the complaint of Appropriate Authority and can be investigated by the Police?

2. Whether the report under Section 173 CrPC along with the complaint of an Appropriate Authority can be filed to the Court?

3. Whether no FIR can be lodged nor the offences can be investigated by the Police and only complaint by the Appropriate Authority directly to the Court lies?

In the circumstances, the questions as formulated in the reference are answered in the following manner, that :-

(1)FIR for the offence committed under the can be registered on the complaint of the Appropriate Authority and can be investigated by the Police; however, cognizance of the same can be taken by the Court on the basis of a complaint made by one of the persons mentioned in Section 28 of the.

(2) A report under Section 173 CrPC along with the complaint of an appropriate authority can be filed in the Court. However, cognizance would be taken only the complaint that has been filed in accordance with Section 28 of the.

(3) FIR can be lodged and offences can be investigated by the Police but cognizance only of the complaint is to be taken by the Court.

....................Therefore, with the offence being cognizable under the which would be under any other law like the in the present case, the police officer can arrest an accused without a warrant; besides, it can investigate the offence also in accordance with the provisions of the CrPC except subject to the limitation placed by the. It would be difficult to comprehend a situation where information is received by the Police of a cognizable offence having been committed but it would be barred to investigate the same. Therefore, in order to investigate a case relating to commission of a cognizable offence, the police would be duty bound to investigate the same for which an FIR would have to be registered although the cognizance of the same would be taken by the Court only on the basis of a complaint filed by any of the person as mentioned in Section 28 of the. In fact in order to investigate a case, registration of an FIR by the Police has been held to be necessary and without which a crime cannot be effectively investigated.

The Supreme Court in Mohindro v. State of Punjab, 2001) 9 SCC 581 [LQ/SC/2001/40 ;] ">(2001) 9 SCC 581 [LQ/SC/2001/40 ;] [LQ/SC/2001/40 ;] ">2001) 9 SCC 581 [LQ/SC/2001/40 ;] ">(2001) 9 SCC 581 [LQ/SC/2001/40 ;] [LQ/SC/2001/40 ;] [LQ/SC/2001/40 ;] considered the grievance of the appellant in the said case wherein she had approached the authority for registering a case (FIR) against the alleged accused persons but the police never registered a case and never put the law in motion. She failed in an attempt in the High Court to get a case registered. She then approached the Supreme Court. Pursuant to the notice issued, the respondents entered appearance. Learned Counsel for the State of Punjab submitted that there had been an inquiry. The Supreme Court said that it failed to understand as to how there could be an inquiry without registering a criminal case. The judgment in Mohindros case was followed in Shashikant v. CBI, (2007) 1 SCC 630 [LQ/SC/2006/1045] . It was held in Shashikants case (supra) that registration of a case is a sine qua non for starting investigation. Only when an FIR is lodged, the officer in charge of the Police Station is statutorily liable to report thereabout to a Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance in terms of Section 157 (1) CrPC.

Therefore, the position is that though in respect of an offence under the, FIR can be registered and investigation conducted; however, cognizance can only be taken on the complaint of any of the persons as mentioned in Section 28 of the. The stage for filing the complaint has not yet reached in the present case as the matter is stated to be still under investigation. Therefore, at this stage the FIR is not liable to be quashed on the ground that the Court cannot take cognizance except on the complaint in writing of the Appropriate Authority.