Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed in public interest by a trust, namely, National Anti-Crime and Human Rights Protection of India raising public cause regarding gross violation of the provisions of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 (‘PNTD Act’), Sheel Nagu, J., stated that it was surprising to note that from the complaint made by the team of the Doctors, a prima-facie case for wrongfully restraining the team of doctors and restraining them from doing their official duties was made out and both these offences were punishable under Sections 3411 and 3532 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). In the present case, neither the offence was special nor involved moral turpitude/complicated questions of fact. Therefore, the police were obliged to register an FIR, which, was not done. Thus, the Court directed the State of Punjab to ensure that whenever a complaint is made which reflects commission of cognizable offence, an FIR ought to be registered and further ensure that the provisions of PNTD Act was followed in its letter and spirit.
On 28-11-2017, a team of doctors visited Respondent 15, a hospital for inspection but the said team was not allowed to enter the premises of the hospital and were not even shown the relevant documents and the machines installed therein. Since the lift was shown to be non-operational, the said team could not reach the first floor of the hospital. As a result, a complaint was made to the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate on 28-11-2017, by the said team of doctors that they were prevented from inspecting the hospital and were also illegally detained physically by restraining them from exercising their duties under the provisions of PNTD Act.
The Court after perusal of the reply filed on behalf of the Respondents 1,3,5-7, observed that the three FIRs were registered against Respondent 15 under the various provisions of Medical Council Act, 1956 and PNTD Act and IPC, at Police Station City Kharar, District SAS Nagar. However, regarding the complaint dated 28-11-2017, it was stated that the said complaint was thoroughly enquired into, but no evidence was found in support of the allegations made therein and therefore, the matter was closed without lodging any FIR.
The Court stated that it was surprising to note that from the complaint dated 28-11-2017 made by the said team of the Doctors, a prima-facie case for wrongfully restraining the team of doctors and restraining them from doing their official duties was made out and both these offences were punishable under Sections 341 and 353 of the IPC. However, despite disclosing commission of cognizable offences, the police did not register an FIR. The Court referred to Lalita Kumari v. State of UP, (2014) 2 SCC 1 (‘Lalita Kumari case’) and stated that in the present case neither the offence was special nor involved moral turpitude/complicated questions of fact. Therefore, the police were obliged to register an FIR, which, was not done.
Thus, the Court directed the State of Punjab to ensure that whenever a complaint is made which reflects commission of cognizable offence, an FIR ought to be registered in terms of the law laid down in Lalita Kumari case (supra) and further ensure that the provisions of PNTD Act was followed in its letter and spirit.
[National Anti-Crime and Human Rights Protection of India v. State of Punjab, Civil Writ Petition No. 2066 of 2018, decided on 30-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Molly A. Lakhanpal, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Saurav Khurana, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab; Naveen S.Bhardwaj, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana; Arun Kumar, Advocate for Suvir Sidhu, Advocate.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Corresponding Section 126(2) of Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’)