High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Deshraj Puri And Another vs State Of Punjab on 22 September, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deshraj Puri And Another vs State Of Punjab on 22 September, 2009
Crl. Misc. No.18251 of 2009 and                                -1-
CRM-M-9963 of 2009




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH
                         ****

Crl. Misc. No.18251 of 2009 and
CRM-M-9963 of 2009
DATE OF DECISION: 22.09.2009

****

Deshraj Puri and another . . . . Petitioners

VS.

State of Punjab . . . . Respondent

****
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

****

Present: Mr.T.S. Sangha, Sr. Advocate for

Mr.J.S. Lalli, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G. Punjab
for the respondent/State.

****

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J.(ORAL)

Crl. Misc. No.18251 of 2009

Allowed as prayed for.

CRM-M-9963 of 2009

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

pursuant to the order dated 16.4.2009, petitioners have joined the

investigation.

Learned counsel for the State/respondent, on

instructions received from ASI Jagpal Singh, admits the fact as

stated by the counsel for the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that offence

under Section 24 of the Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic

Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 is not made out
Crl. Misc. No.18251 of 2009 and -2-
CRM-M-9963 of 2009

as Smt. Surjit Kaur was never subjected to pre-natal diagnose for

her alleged conception. He further submits that insofar as offences

Under Section 420, 465, 467 & 470 IPC are concerned, the

respondent/State has also verified from the photostat certificates

given by the petitioners that they are qualified doctors. He further

submits that in any case Section 312 IPC is bailable.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, order

dated 16.4.2009 is hereby made absolute.

It is directed that the petitioner shall join the

investigation as and when required and shall abide by the

conditions as envisaged by Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Petition is disposed of.

It is, however, made clear that nothing observed herein

shall be envisaged as an expression of opinion on the merits of the

case

(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 JUDGE
vivek