HC refuses to quash case against doctor for telling foetus gender
Mumbai, May 1: The Bombay High Court has refused to quash and set aside the proceedings initiated under the provisions of Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques Act against a doctor for allegedly disclosing sex of
Mumbai, May 1: The Bombay High Court has refused to quash and set aside the proceedings initiated under the provisions of Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques Act against a doctor for allegedly disclosing sex of a foetus to a pregnant woman.
“I do not find any substance in the application for quashing the proceedings lodged against the applicant,” said Judge M L Tahilyani recently while hearing the plea of 66-year-old Dr Dadarao Parwe, a resident of Sindkhed Raja in Buldhana district.
The doctor had been prosecuted by the appropriate authority for offences punishable under Sections 23 and 25 for having allegedly committed breaches of various provisions of the Act and Rules.
During the course of arguments, the judge noticed that first ever breach alleged against the applicant was that he had disclosed the sex of foetus to a pregnant woman. However, there is no further material in the complaint in this regard.
“Therefore, the charge in this respect appears to be highly questionable,” observed Justice Tahilyani.
As far as other breaches are concerned, the court noted that the counsel for the applicant had not been able to place any material to show that provisions of the Act and Rules have been complied with and that the applicant has not committed any breach as alleged by the appropriate authority.
“In the absence of definite or admitted material before me, it is not possible to examine the issues under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (under which the High Court can use its powers to quash case in lower court), the Judge observed.
Counsel for applicant, Anand Deshpande, argued that the appropriate authority cannot file any complaint without the advice of Advisory Committee.
However, the judge said, “After having gone through the provisions of the Act and Rules, I do not agree with the submission made by the applicant. I am of the view that the appropriate authority may take into consideration the recommendations of the Advisory Committee”.
“It is not the intent of law that the appropriate authority cannot file any complaint or take any action without there being advise of the Advisory Committee. In view thereof, I do not find any substance in the application for quashing the proceedings lodged against the applicant”, Justice Tahilyani remarked.
At this stage, the counsel for the applicant prayed for permitting the doctor to use the sonography machine seized by the appropriate authority.
However, the judge said that he was not inclined to grant this relief as in his considered opinion this case could be disposed of on merits within two weeks of framing charge against the applicant or explaining the particulars to him as the case may be.
Accordingly, the judge dismissed the doctor's plea for quashing case in lower court while directing that the trial should commence immediately and that the case be decided within 15 days of framing charge against the accused.
The Court also ruled that the ad-interim order, if any, given earlier, would stand vacated.
“I do not find any substance in the application for quashing the proceedings lodged against the applicant,” said Judge M L Tahilyani recently while hearing the plea of 66-year-old Dr Dadarao Parwe, a resident of Sindkhed Raja in Buldhana district.
The doctor had been prosecuted by the appropriate authority for offences punishable under Sections 23 and 25 for having allegedly committed breaches of various provisions of the Act and Rules.
During the course of arguments, the judge noticed that first ever breach alleged against the applicant was that he had disclosed the sex of foetus to a pregnant woman. However, there is no further material in the complaint in this regard.
“Therefore, the charge in this respect appears to be highly questionable,” observed Justice Tahilyani.
As far as other breaches are concerned, the court noted that the counsel for the applicant had not been able to place any material to show that provisions of the Act and Rules have been complied with and that the applicant has not committed any breach as alleged by the appropriate authority.
“In the absence of definite or admitted material before me, it is not possible to examine the issues under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (under which the High Court can use its powers to quash case in lower court), the Judge observed.
Counsel for applicant, Anand Deshpande, argued that the appropriate authority cannot file any complaint without the advice of Advisory Committee.
However, the judge said, “After having gone through the provisions of the Act and Rules, I do not agree with the submission made by the applicant. I am of the view that the appropriate authority may take into consideration the recommendations of the Advisory Committee”.
“It is not the intent of law that the appropriate authority cannot file any complaint or take any action without there being advise of the Advisory Committee. In view thereof, I do not find any substance in the application for quashing the proceedings lodged against the applicant”, Justice Tahilyani remarked.
At this stage, the counsel for the applicant prayed for permitting the doctor to use the sonography machine seized by the appropriate authority.
However, the judge said that he was not inclined to grant this relief as in his considered opinion this case could be disposed of on merits within two weeks of framing charge against the applicant or explaining the particulars to him as the case may be.
Accordingly, the judge dismissed the doctor's plea for quashing case in lower court while directing that the trial should commence immediately and that the case be decided within 15 days of framing charge against the accused.
The Court also ruled that the ad-interim order, if any, given earlier, would stand vacated.