Bombay High Court
Suretech Hospital And Research Centre ... vs Dr Savita W/O Ranjit Meshram ( ... on 31 July, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:7484
1 939.CRI.WP.192-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 192 OF 2025
1. Suretech Hospital & Research Centre
Ltd., 13-A, R. P. Banerjee Marg,
Dhantoli, Nagpur, through its Director,
Dr. Raju Deshmukh s/o Ganpatrao
Deshmukh, aged about 68 years,
Occ. Medical Practitioner,
R/o C/o Suretech Hospital & Research
Centre Ltd., 13-A, R. P. Banerjee Marg,
Dhantoli, Nagpur.
2. Dr. Raju Deshmukh s/o Ganpatrao
Deshmukh,
Aged about 76 years,
Occ. Medical Practitioner,
R/o C/o Suretech Hospital & Research
Centre Ltd., 13-A, R. P. Banerjee Marg,
Dhantoli, Nagpur. PETITIONERS
Versus
1. Dr. Savita w/o Ranjit Meshram,
(allegedly) Appropriate Authority
appointed under PCPNDT Act, 2003,
Health Officer (M), Nagpur Municipal
Corporation, Civil Station, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
2. The State of Maharashtra, through
Police Station Officer, Police Station
Dhantoli, Nagpur. RESPONDENTS
2 939.CRI.WP.192-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. Shaad Khan, Advocate h/f Mr. Masood Shareef, Advocate for
the Petitioner.
Mr. N.R. Rode, APP for the Respondent No.2/State.
-----------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATED : 31st JULY, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the respective
parties.
3. The present Petition is filed against the order dated
10.12.2024 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Nagpur in
Criminal Revision Application No. 98/2018, whereby the
learned Judge was pleased to dismiss the Criminal Revision of
the Petitioners. In the said Revision, the Petitioner has
challenged the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Nagpur rejecting the discharge application in a Complaint
Case No.4344/2012 under Section 28 of the Pre-Conception
3 939.CRI.WP.192-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex
Selection) Act, 1994, (for short "PCPNDT Act").
4. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal
of the Petition are as under:
4(i). The Petitioner No.1 Suretech Hospital & Research
Centre situated at Dhantoli, Nagpur was established by the
Petitioner No.2 in the year 1996. The Petitioner No.1 is a
Hospital and Research Centre of which Dr. Shri Raju Deshmukh
the Petitioner No.2 is the Managing Director and is practicing as
a Senior Orthopedic Surgeon and he is in the said profession
since last more than 3 decades. It was alleged that the Petitioner
No.1 Hospital has contravened the Sections 19(4), 23(1) and
Rules 4(ii), 9(1)(iv) and 13 of the PCPNDT Act and Rules, and
thereby the complaint was filed by the Respondent No.1 on an
allegation that there is a team of Doctors who are associated
with the Petitioners in running the said Hospital.
4(ii). The Suretech Hospital is a Multispeciality Hospital
where treatment for almost all kinds of ailments are done
except cardiology. It was further alleged that looking towards
the shocking declining sex ratio of girl child in State of
4 939.CRI.WP.192-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
Maharashtra and throughout India as well. The Additional
Director of Health Services Pune, issued direction for strictly
implementation of PCPNDT Act in the State of Maharashtra.
They also found that the record of Forms "F" has not been
properly maintained, most of the Forms were not signed by the
concerned Radiologist and the information of the patients were
kept blank and half filled also, and therefore, the Respondent
No.1 alongwith other Officers on 11.12.2011 made surprise visit
at the clinic of the present Petitioners for inspection. In this
inspection it was found that form "F" were not filled in properly
i.e. some portion mentioned therein were left blank and some of
the form "F" was not signed by the Doctor who has performed
sonography on the pregnant woman. Thus, according to the
PCPNDT Act filling of the form "F" is mandatory in nature and
there is a violation of which making liable for the punishment
under the PCPNDT Act, and therefore, the complaint is lodged.
4(iii). After filing of the complaint, the present Petitioners
appeared and filed an application for discharge on the ground
that the Respondent No.1 is not the Authority to take
appropriate action, and therefore, she is not competent to file
the complaint under Section 28 of the PCPNDT Act, but the said
5 939.CRI.WP.192-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
application was rejected and being aggrieved and dissatisifed
with the same, the present Petitioners filed the Criminal
Revision No.98/2018 but the same was also dismissed and
hence this Writ Petition.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners, who
submitted that the entire issue involved is whether the
Respondent No.1 is the Competent Authority to file the
complaint under Section 28 of PCPNDT Act and this issue is
already dealt by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition
Nos. 426/2016 and 5/2016. Thus, the issue involved has
already attained finality and in the light of the observation of
this Court, the Respondent No.1 is not the Competent person to
file the complaint, and therefore, the order passed by the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur and confirmed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, deserves to be quashed and
set aside.
6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that
there is no such gazette notification published in the official
gazette by which Respondent/complainant can be said to have
been appointed as the appropriate authority. The notification
6 939.CRI.WP.192-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
dated 13.10.2011 does not, according to him relate to the
appointment of Respondent No.1 as an appropriate authority.
He further submitted that as the Respondent No.1 is appointed
as a Health Officer, and therefore, she is a competent person to
initiate the action, and therefore, no interference is called for.
7. Thus, the short point involved is whether the
Respondent No.1 who is the complainant was legally competent
to file the complaint under Section 28 of the PCPNDT Act. It
would be material to note that Section 28(1) of the said Act is
in a negative language and mandates that no Court shall take
cognizance of an offence under this Act, except on a complaint
made by (a) the appropriate authority concerned or (b) any
officer authorized in this behalf by the State/Central
Government and (c) any officer authorized by the appropriate
authority. It is contended that the complainant/Respondent
No.1 was not the appropriate authority, as for the purpose of
being appointed as an appropriate authority under Section
17(2) of the PCPNDT Act, there has to be gazette notification
published in the official gazette in this regard.
8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, invited my
7 939.CRI.WP.192-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
attention towards the observation of this Court in Criminal Writ
Petition Nos. 426/2016 and 5/2016 in para No. 5, wherein this
Court has already dealt with this issue and observed that since
the only question is about the authority of
Respondent/Complainant in filing the complaint and it is
admitted that there is no notification appointing Respondent
No.1 as an appropriate authority under Section 17(2) of the
PCPNDT Act, nor is there any authorization in favour of
Respondent No.1 as required by Section 28(1)(a) of the said
Act, the complaint lodged by the Respondent No.1 clearly
should not have been taken cognizance of by the learned JMFC.
The learned Sessions Court in its impugned judgment clearly
ignores this position and misdirects itself in relying upon the
notification dated 13.10.2011, which merely relates to
appointment of a Task Force and nothing else, considering
which the same cannot be sustained. It is therefore quashed and
set aside. For the reasons recorded above, it is held that the
complaints filed by Respondent/complaint are without the
authority as contemplated by Section 28(1)(a) of the PCPNDT
Act and could not have been taken cognizance of by the learned
JMFC.
8 939.CRI.WP.192-2025.JUDGMENT.odt
9. The issue involved in the said Writ Petitions is
identical with the issue involved in the present Writ Petition,
and therefore, the decision is squarely applicable to the present
case also. In view of that, the Petition deserves to be allowed.
10. Accordingly, Petition is allowed.
11. The order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Nagpur in Criminal Complaint Case No.4344/2012 below
Exh. 18 confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in
Criminal Revision Application No.98/2018 below Exh.7, is
hereby quashed and set aside and the complaint filed by
Respondent/complainant is dismissed.
12. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
13. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
( URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
S.D.Bhimte
Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 01/08/2025 19:01:14
