Judgment V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State, the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner is questioning the correctness of the order dated 04/03/2014 passed by the learned 2nd J.M.F.C., Rahata in R.C.C. No. 151/2007, by which a charge is framed against the petitioner under the relevant provisions of the Pre Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 (for short, 'PCPNDT Act') together with the Judgment and order dated 03/09/2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon in Criminal Revision Application No. 11/2014, by which the learned revisional Court dismissed the Revision filed on behalf of the petitioner to question the correctness of framing of the charge against him. 2. Heard Mr. V.J. Dixit, the learned Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. L.V. Sangeet, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.R. Kale, the learned A.P.P. for respondent State. 3. The learned Senior Counsel took me through copy of the Complaint filed on behalf of the Appropriate Authority against the present petitioner, which is registered as Regular Criminal Case No. 151/2007, more precisely, he has pointed out the nature of allegations made against the present petitioner in the said Complaint. He has also pointed out to this Court the cross examination of the Appropriate Authority, when the Appropriate Authority was in witness box in respect of the evidence before framing of Charge. He has also pointed out to me the Circular issued by the State Appropriate Authority and Additional Director of Health Services, Family Welfare, MCH & SH, Pune-1 addressed to all Civil Surgeons, all Medical Officers of Health, Municipal Corporation and the Assistant Director of Health Services (Medical), Pune Circle, Pune. 4. From the cross examination, it was pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that the Appropriate Authority in clear terms has admitted that the person, who performed the sonography i.e. Radiologist and the owner of the hospital can be the different persons. The Appropriate Authority Dr. Sakhahari Mahadu Sonawane has further admitted in his cross examination that it is incumbent on the part of the Radiologist to give the declaration. Similarly, it is also necessary on the part of the owner of the sonography centre to give the declaration. The Appropriate Authority Dr. Sakhahari Mahadu Sonawane has further admitted in his cross examination that it is incumbent on the part of the Radiologist to give the declaration. Similarly, it is also necessary on the part of the owner of the sonography centre to give the declaration. The charge against the present petitioner is that though Dr. Wable has performed the sonography, Form 'F' is not signed by him. It is not the case of the prosecution nor there are tinch of any allegation in the complaint that the present petitioner has not signed Form 'F'. 5. Dr. Sonawane, who is Appropriate Authority has specifically admitted in his cross examination that though it was incumbent for Dr. Wable to sign Form 'F', the Appropriate Authority has failed to issue any notice and/or failed to call any explanation from him nor Dr. Wable has joined as an accused in the present proceeding or no further proceedings are initiated against Dr. Wable. 6. It is thus clear that when it is the case of the prosecution that Dr. Wable has performed sonography and it was incumbent on him to sign Form 'F' and when it is not the case of the prosecution or nothing is spelt out from the Complaint that the present petitioner has not signed Form 'F', hence continuance of the criminal proceeding, in my opinion, will be an abuse of process of law. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the learned 2nd J.M.F.C., Rahata dated 04/03/2014 in Regular Criminal Case No. 151/2007 can not stand to the scrutiny of law. Consequently, the said order together with the Judgment and order passed by the learned re visional Court dated 03/09/2014 in Criminal Revision Application No. 11/2014 are hereby quashed and set aside. The Regular Criminal Case No. 151/2007 pending on the file of the J.M.F.C., Rahata against the present petitioner is hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute. Petition allowed.