Before finally concluding our discussion, we may also deal with two more submissions advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant. Submission of Mr. Bhalla, learned Senior Counsel, is that though FIR No. 336 dated 17.09.2015 was registered against Dr. Abdul Kadir and the Appellant following the illegal raid, the Appellant was discharged by the learned Magistrate on the basis of an application filed by the police itself. The contention is that after discharge of the Appellant, the criminal complaint is not maintainable since it is based on the same set of facts. We are afraid such a submission cannot be accepted. Section 28(1) of the PCPNDT Act, which we have already taken note of supra, specifically says that no court shall take cognizance of an offence under the PCPNDT Act except on a complaint made by the appropriate authority or by any officer authorized by the appropriate authority etc. Further, as per Rule 18A (3) (iv) of the PCPNDT Rules, the appropriate authority should not involve police for investigating cases under the PCPNDT Act as the cases under this Act are tried as complaint cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure. {Para 54}
Ratio: Discharge in Police Case vs. Statutory Complaint – A discharge order passed by a Magistrate in a criminal case arising from an FIR (Police Investigation) has no bearing on a separate complaint filed by the Appropriate Authority under Section 28 of the PCPNDT Act - The Act mandates cognizance only upon a complaint by the authorized authority, and police investigation is generally discouraged for these specialized offences – appeal dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 1058 of 2026
Decided On: 23.02.2026
Naresh Kumar Garg Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
Author: Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Citation: 2026 INSC 176,MANU/SC/0182/2026.
Read full judgment here: Click here.
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment