RAVINDER KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA

RAVINDER KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA

Because the search of the appellant's clinic was authorised solely by the Civil Surgeon (Chairman) and not by the Appropriate Authority as required by Section 30 read with Section 17, the search was illegal; the FIR and complaint were founded on material seized in that illegal search and therefore continuing prosecution would be an abuse of process, warranting quashing of the FIR and complaint.

Parties
Appellant: Ravinder Kumar; Respondent: State of Haryana
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Judgment Dated 13.01.2023 Declining to Quash FIR No.408/2017 and Complaint COMA No.40 of 2018
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Section 30 Interpretation, "reason to Believe", Appropriate Authority, Raid/search of Clinic, Quashing of FIR and Complaint, Illegal Search, Abuse of Process, Section 23, Section 28
Pre Conception and Pre Natal Diagnostic Techniques (prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 Criminal Law Search and Seizure Police/administrative Procedure Section 30 Interpretation "reason to Believe" Appropriate Authority Raid/search of Clinic +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ravinder Kumar

Appellant

State of Haryana

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Judgment Dated 13.01.2023 Declining to Quash FIR No.408/2017 and Complaint COMA No.40 of 2018

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a search under Section 30(1) of the PC&PNDT Act was lawful when authorised by the Chairman alone and not by the Appropriate Authority as a body
  2. 2 What meaning is to be assigned to the expression "has reason to believe" in Section 30(1) of the Act and what evidentiary/decision‑making standard applies

Ratio Decidendi

Because the search of the appellant's clinic was authorised solely by the Civil Surgeon (Chairman) and not by the Appropriate Authority as required by Section 30 read with Section 17, the search was illegal; the FIR and complaint were founded on material seized in that illegal search and therefore continuing prosecution would be an abuse of process, warranting quashing of the FIR and complaint.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned judgment dated 13 January 2023 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh is set aside
  • FIR No.408 dated 27 April 2017 registered at Police Station Gurugram is quashed