Case Note & Summary
The applicants, Dr. Pratidnya Jayesh Shinde and Dr. Rahul Sudhirchandra Shinde, were accused nos. 2 and 3 in Regular Criminal Case No. 7 of 2012 pending before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Amalner. They were charged with offences under Sections 4(3), 5, 6, 29 read with Section 28 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act) and Rules 9(1)(4), 10(1-A) read with Sections 23 and 25 of the Act. The first accused was Dr. Jayesh @ Gulab Sukdevrao Shinde, husband of the first applicant. The applicants filed an application before the Magistrate seeking discharge under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, contending that the accusation was groundless. The Magistrate rejected this application by order dated 15-6-2012. Aggrieved, the applicants approached the Bombay High Court under its inherent powers, praying for quashing of the prosecution. The High Court examined the material on record, including the complaint and annexures. It found that there was no incriminating material against the applicants to suggest their involvement in the alleged offences. The court noted that the applicants were merely relatives of the main accused and that the complaint did not specify any overt act by them. Consequently, the court held that the accusation was groundless and that continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process. The court allowed the application, quashed the proceedings against the applicants, and set aside the Magistrate's order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Discharge under Section 245(2) CrPC - Groundless Accusation - The court examined whether the material on record made out a prima facie case against the accused - Held that where the accusation is groundless, the accused is entitled to discharge - The Magistrate's order rejecting discharge was set aside as no incriminating material existed against the applicants (Paras 4-7). B) Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Act - Offences under Sections 4(3), 5, 6, 29 read with Section 28 - Quashing of Prosecution - The applicants were accused of violating provisions of the PCPNDT Act - The court found that the complaint and material did not disclose any specific role or involvement of the applicants in the alleged offences - Held that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law, and the prosecution was quashed (Paras 4-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the accusation against the applicants under the PCPNDT Act was groundless, warranting discharge under Section 245(2) CrPC, and whether the prosecution should be quashed.
Final Decision
The application is allowed. The proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No. 7 of 2012 pending before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Amalner, are quashed and set aside insofar as the applicants are concerned. The order dated 15-6-2012 passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside.
Law Points
- Discharge under Section 245(2) CrPC
- Quashing of criminal proceedings
- PCPNDT Act offences
- Groundless accusation
- Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC
