JUDGMENT : ANAND SHARMA, J. 1. Since both the aforementioned criminal misc. petitions are arising out of same incident, therefore, with the consent of the parties, the petitions were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4985/2019: 2. The petitioner, who is Manager of Indu Ultrasound Scan Centre, Singhana, Jhunjhunu, has challenged FIR No. 2/2014 registered at Police Station PBI, Jaipur whereas in S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1422/2015, petitioner Dr. Yogesh Kumar, who is a doctor by profession, has assailed the proceedings initiated on the basis of FIR No. 2/2014 registered at Police Station PBI, Jaipur including complaint No. 7/2014 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 2(E), 4(3), 5(2), 6, 19(1), 19(2) of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 1994’) and Rule 3(3)(1),(3), 4(1)(i)(ii), 9(1)(4)(6)(7)(8), 11, 17(1)(2), 18 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Technique (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1996') read with Section 23 of the Act of 1994 and Section 31 of the Rajasthan Medical Act, 1952 as also Sections 168, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as 'IPC') pending before the Court of Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (PCPNDT Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’). 3. It is stated that FIR No. 2/2014 was registered at Police Station PBI, Jaipur with the allegation that the petitioner in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4985/2019 was indulged in commission of offence of sex determination by using pre-natal diagnostic techniques and has, thereby, committed offences punishable under Sections 4(3), 5(2), 6 of the Act of 1994 and Rules 9(1), (4), (6), (7), (8), 17(1)(2), 18 of the Rules of 1996 read with Section 23 of the Act of 1994. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Act of 1994 is a special statute and a self contained code. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Act of 1994 is a special statute and a self contained code. In case any offence is alleged to have been committed in violation of the provisions of the Act of 1994 or the Rules of 1996, then no FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’) can be lodged and instead thereof, a criminal complaint can be filed under Section 28 of the Act of 1994 by the Appropriate Authority appointed under the Act of 1994. In the instant case, instead of filing criminal complaint, FIR has been lodged by the Deputy Director (RCH) and Incharge of PCPNDT Cell, Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, which, in view of specific provisions of the Act of 1994, could not have been lodged by the police authorities. Therefore, lodging of FIR and the proceedings initiated thereunder are totally without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed and set aside by this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, relied upon the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Dr. Mohammad Imtiyaz Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another (S.B. Criminal (Pet.) No. 5502/2022 decided on 22.09.2022), which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 28.03.2025 passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 103/2023, whereby special leave petition filed by the State against the aforesaid decision has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon another decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Doctor Murari Lal & Another Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Another (S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 6713/2018 decided on 08.10.2025) . Apart from above, decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Manvinder Singh Gill (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2226/2014 and other connected petition decided on 03.08.2015) has also been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition by submitting that FIR can be registered by the police authorities on receiving any information with regard to commission of cognizable offence. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition by submitting that FIR can be registered by the police authorities on receiving any information with regard to commission of cognizable offence. However, in the cases where there is provision for filing complaint under any special statute, in view of the provisions of Section 190 Cr.P.C., complaint can be registered on the basis of police report, which is filed pursuant to any FIR. Hence, no error whatsoever has been committed by the police authorities in lodging FIR in the instant matter. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and meticulously examined the material on record. 8. Prime question which arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether in the cases where the offences alleged to have been committed are relating to the Act of 1994 or the Rules of 1996, FIR can be registered under Section 154 Cr.P.C. or the only recourse to prosecute the accused is to file a complaint as per Section 28 of the Act of 1994 ? 9. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer to Section 27 of the Act of 1994, which makes it absolutely clear that every offence under the Act of 1994 shall be cognizable. Section 28 of the Act of 1994 makes it clear that no court shall take cognizance of an offence under the Act of 1994 except on a complaint made by the Appropriate Authority concerned or any officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be, or by a person, who has given notice of not less than 15 days in the manner prescribed, to the Appropriate Authority. Section 28 of the Act of 1994 is quoted as below: “ 28. Cognizance of offences.- (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a complaint made by— (a) the Appropriate Authority concerned, or any officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be, or the Appropriate Authority; or (b) a person who has given notice of not less than [fifteen days] in the manner prescribed, to the Appropriate Authority, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint to the court. Explanation.—For the purpose of this clause, “person” includes a social organisation. Explanation.—For the purpose of this clause, “person” includes a social organisation. (2) No court other than that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act. (3) Where a complaint has been made under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the court may, on demand by such person, direct the Appropriate Authority to make available copies of the relevant records in its possession to such person.” 10. Appropriate Authority is appointed under Section 17 of the Act of 1994 by the Central Government or the State Government as the case may be. Provisions of Section 17(1) to Section 17(4) of the Act of 1994, being relevant, are reproduced as below: “ 17. Appropriate Authority and Advisory Committee.- (1) The Central Government shall appoint, by notification in the Official Gazette, one or more Appropriate Authorities for each of the Union territories for the purposes of this Act. (2) The State Government shall appoint, by notification in the Official Gazette, one or more Appropriate Authorities for the whole or part of the State for the purposes of this Act having regard to the intensity of the problem of pre-natal sex determination leading to female foeticide. (3) The officers appointed as Appropriate Authorities under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be,— 1[(a) when appointed for the whole of the State or the Union territory, consisting of the following three members:- (i) an officer of or above the rank of the Joint Director of Health and Family Welfare-Chairperson; (ii) an eminent woman representing women’s organisation; and (iii) an officer of Law Department of the State or the Union territory concerned: Provided that it shall be the duty of the State or the Union territory concerned to constitute multimember State or Union territory level Appropriate Authority within three months of the coming into force of the Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Amendment Act, 2002: Provided further that any vacancy occurring therein shall be filled within three months of the occurrence.] (b) when appointed for any part of the State or the Union territory, of such other rank as the State Government or the Central Government, as the case may be, may deem fit. (4) The Appropriate Authority shall have the following functions, namely:— (a) to grant, suspend or cancel registration of a Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic; (b) to enforce standards prescribed for the Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory and Genetic Clinic; (c) to investigate complaints of breach of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder and take immediate action; (d) to seek and consider the advice of the Advisory Committee, constituted under sub-section (5), on application for registration and on complaints for suspension or cancellation of registration; 1[(e) to take appropriate legal action against the use of any sex selection technique by any person at any place, suo motu or brought to its notice and also to initiate independent investigations in such matter; (f) to create public awareness against the practice of sex selection or pre-natal determination of sex; (g) to supervise the implementation of the provisions of the Act and rules; (h) to recommend to the Board and State Boards modifications required in the rules in accordance with changes in technology or social conditions; (i) to take action on the recommendations of the Advisory Committee made after investigation of complaint for suspension or cancellation of registration.]” 11. Thus, a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Act of 1994 would make it clear that the Act of 1994 prescribes procedure for taking cognizance of the offences committed under the Act of 1994 and Section 28 of the Act of 1994 starts with negative covenant and would mean that the cognizance can be taken only in the manner which has been provided under the Act of 1994 and quite apparently, the Act of 1994 provides for taking cognizance only on a complaint, which is to be made by the Appropriate Authority concerned or by any officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government or by a person after giving notice of 15 days to the Appropriate Authority. 12. Contention of learned Public Prosecutor is that the FIR can be lodged even on the basis of police report. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of Section 2(d), 2(r), 4, 5, 173(3) and 190 Cr.P.C. which are quoted as below: “ 2. Definitions. —In this Code, unless the context otherwise requires,— (a) ……. (b) ….... In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of Section 2(d), 2(r), 4, 5, 173(3) and 190 Cr.P.C. which are quoted as below: “ 2. Definitions. —In this Code, unless the context otherwise requires,— (a) ……. (b) ….... (d) “complaint” means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. Explanation.—A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant; (r) “police report” means a report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate under sub-section (2) of section 173; 4. Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws. —(1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained. (2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. 5. Saving. —Nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force. 173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation. —(1) ......... 173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation. —(1) ......... 2[(1A) .......] (2) (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating— (a) the names of the parties; (b) the nature of the information; (c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case; (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom; (e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170; 1[(h) whether the report of medical examination of the woman has been attached where investigation relates to an offence under 2 [sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB] or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)]. (ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given. 190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates. —(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence— (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts; (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. (2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub- section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.” 13. Perusal of above provisions of Cr.P.C. would make it clear that the complaint means an allegation made to a Magistrate with a view to take action under Cr.P.C. with regard to commission of offence. However, definition of ‘complaint’ as provided under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. specifically excludes a police report. Perusal of above provisions of Cr.P.C. would make it clear that the complaint means an allegation made to a Magistrate with a view to take action under Cr.P.C. with regard to commission of offence. However, definition of ‘complaint’ as provided under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. specifically excludes a police report. Police report has been defined as a report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Section 4 Cr.P.C. would also make it clear that when a special Act provides for special offence and special procedure then the same must be dealt with under that particular Act itself and only in the cases where no special procedure has been prescribed in the special law, the procedure contained in Cr.P.C. should be valid and applicable. Section 5 Cr.P.C. although is a saving clause and saves whatever has already been provided or covered by the Code, yet it does not prohibit the Legislature from enacting a new law and Section 5 Cr.P.C. does not act in derogation of Section 4 Cr.P.C. Joint reading of Sections 4 and 5 Cr.P.C. would make it clear that any special law or special jurisdiction or power under special Act shall remain unaffected by the provisions of Cr.P.C. 14. Section 190 Cr.P.C. provides for taking cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate has got jurisdiction to take cognizance upon receiving a complaint as well as upon a police report, yet in the instant case, where the special statute, such as the Act of 1994 which provides for special procedure, i.e. taking cognizance only on complaint made by Appropriate Authority or any other officer duly authorised in this behalf by the Central Government/State Government, then in such event, obviously, provisions of Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR as well as for taking cognizance on police report would not be applicable. Furthermore, definition of ‘complaint’ provided under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. itself excludes police report from the purview of complaint. Hence, contention of learned Public Prosecutor that irrespective of the fact that the procedure of filing complaint has been provided under the Act of 1994, police report can be treated as a complaint and cognizance can be taken thereupon, is totally misconceived and baseless in view of the aforesaid specific provisions. Hence, contention of learned Public Prosecutor that irrespective of the fact that the procedure of filing complaint has been provided under the Act of 1994, police report can be treated as a complaint and cognizance can be taken thereupon, is totally misconceived and baseless in view of the aforesaid specific provisions. Therefore, it is, hereby, held that for the purpose of taking cognizance for offences under the Act of 1994 or the Rules made thereunder, the only prescribed mode is that the cognizance can be taken only on filing of a complaint in view of Section 28 of the Act of 1994. 15. While taking the aforesaid view, this Court finds support from the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Dr. Mohammad Imtiyaz (supra) , wherein provisions of Section 27 and 28 of the Act of 1994 as well as Rule 18A of the Rules of 1996 were considered and after examining the aforesaid provisions, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as under: “4. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner informed that after registration of the impugned F.I.R., a complaint has also been instituted by Manohar Lal Meena, Police Inspector, Officer-in-charge, Police Station P.C.P.N.D.T. Bureau of Investigation, Medical & Health Services, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the appropriate authority”) and this FIR is hit by Article 20 of the Constitution and Section 300 of the Code. 7. According to this Court, the allegation that the petitioner was involved in sex determination, definitely gives rise to an offence under the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act, but the moot question is whether such offence can be taken cognizance of by the Police or whether the Police can directly register an F.I.R. 10. Sections 27 & 28 of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act clearly suggest that the scheme of the Act bars interference of other authorities including the police. Section 28 clearly prohibits a Court from taking cognizance of any offence under the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act except pursuant to a complaint filed by an appropriate authority or authorised officer in this behalf. It is to be noted that a person other than appropriate authority or authorised officer cannot file a complaint directly to the Court–he has to give 15 days notice. 13. It is to be noted that a person other than appropriate authority or authorised officer cannot file a complaint directly to the Court–he has to give 15 days notice. 13. Impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by the Authorized Officer, Police Station P.B.I., Medical & Health Services, Jaipur, who might be an appropriate authority as per Section 28 of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act, competent to file a complaint but not empowered to register an F.I.R. 14. The registration of F.I.R. is per se, illegal, contrary to the provisions of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act and without jurisdiction.” 16. The power to quash FIR as exercised by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Dr. Mohammad Imtiyaz (supra) has been held to be well within jurisdiction in view of Sections 27 and 28 of the Act of 1994 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing petition for special leave to appeal filed by the State vide order dated 28.03.2025, whereby judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Mohammad Imtiyaz (supra) has been affirmed. 17. In the case of Doctor Murari Lal & Another (supra) Co-ordinate Bench of this Court relied upon the decision of Co- ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Dr. Mohammad Imtiyaz (supra) and came to a conclusion that the FIR lodged in respect of offences under the provisions of the Act of 1994 was without jurisdiction and the FIR impugned in that case was quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Para 14 and 15 of the decision in the case of Doctor Murari Lal & Another (supra) , being relevant, are reproduced as under: 18. In the case of State of M.P. Vs. Manvinder Singh Gill (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that cognizance in respect of offences committed under the provisions of the Act of 1994 can be taken only over a complaint made by Appropriate Authority or by any officer authorised by the Central Government/State Government as the case may be and otherwise, any other procedure would not be valid in the eyes of law. 19. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion as well as the consistent law laid down in the abovementioned decisions, this Court is of the considered view that FIR No. 2/2024 registered at Police Station PBI, Jaipur is totally without jurisdiction and the same along with all consequential proceedings initiated pursuant to the said FIR is, quashed and set aside qua the petitioner, Mahendra Singh. S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1422/2015: 20. This criminal misc. petition has also arisen out of same facts and incident referred to in S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4985/2019. In the aforesaid petition, FIR No. 2/2014 was lodged against accused Mahendra Singh whereas in the present petition, on the basis of police report pursuant to FIR No. 2/2014, complaint was filed by one Madanlal Sharma, Sub Inspector of Police, who was officer-in-charge of Police Station PCPNDT Bureau of Investigation, Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur, against the accused-petitioner, Dr. Yogesh Kumar for not following the provisions of the Act of 1994 and for carrying out sex determination by using pre-natal diagnostic techniques in violation of the Act of 1994 and the Rules made thereunder. 21. In addition to the submissions made in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4985/2019, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that firstly perusal of the complaint would reveal that the same has been lodged pursuant to police report in relation to FIR No. 2/2014, which is not maintainable and secondly, even otherwise, complaint has been lodged by an unauthorised person, namely, Madanlal Sharma, who cannot be said to be an authorised officer in view of specific provisions dealing with authorised person to lodge a complaint under the Act of 1994. Learned counsel for the petitioner indicates that Section 17 of the Act of 1994 provides for appointment of Appropriate Authority for the purpose of filing complaint under Section 28 of the Act of 1994. It has been emphasised by learned counsel for the petitioner that appointment of the Appropriate Authority shall be made by the State Government by notification in Official Gazette and Section 17(3) of the Act of 1994 provides that officers appointed as Appropriate Authority shall be consisting of three members, out of which one officer shall be of or above the rank of the Joint Director of Health and Family Welfare, who shall be the Chairman of the Appropriate Authority. Another member shall be an eminent woman representing women’s organisation and third member shall be an officer of Law Department of the State. 22. While referring to the functions of Appropriate Authority, learned counsel for the petitioner indicates that as per Section 17(4)(e) of the Act of 1994, Appropriate Authority can take appropriate legal action against the use of any sex selection technique by any person at any place, suo motu or in case the same is brought to its notice and also to initiate independent investigation in such matter. While referring to the above provisions, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the instant case, complaint has been lodged by Madanlal Sharma, who was not Appropriate Authority falling within the term ‘Appropriate Authority’, nor was otherwise authorised for the purpose of lodging complaint either by the Central Government or the State Government. In this regard, learned counsel referred order dated 05.05.2011, whereby, Appropriate Authority consisting of three members, namely, Brijkishore Gupta, Member; Dr. Param Navdeep Singh, Member and Dr. Samit Sharma, IAS, Chairman. As many as four persons, namely, Hardayal Singh, Dr. Shambhudayal Sharma, Kishanram and Dr. Naresh Kumar were authorised for the purpose of search as well as for filing complaint under the Act of 1994 and for violation of the Act of 1994. In the same very order dated 05.05.2011, the authority was given for the purpose of search and seizure to four other persons including the complainant in the instant case, Madanlal Sharma. 23. Learned counsel further submits that the aforesaid order, although, does not specifically provide any authority to the complainant Madanlal Sharma for the purpose of filing complaint, yet it was significant that this order was issued by the Appropriate Authority, which could not have further delegated the power to lodge complaint under the Act of 1994 to any other person beyond the provisions of the Act of 1994. It was further submitted that aforesaid notification dated 05.05.2011 for constitution of Appropriate Authority in relation of appoint of Dr. Param Navdeep Singh, was also subject matter of consideration in the case of Dr. vijay Gupta Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Others (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10286/2012 and other connected petitions decided on 22.05.2014) , wherein it was observed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that Dr. Param Navdeep Singh, was also subject matter of consideration in the case of Dr. vijay Gupta Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Others (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10286/2012 and other connected petitions decided on 22.05.2014) , wherein it was observed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that Dr. Param Navdeep Singh merely being MLA, cannot be considered to be eminent woman representing women’s organisation. It was further observed by the Co-ordnate Bench that even otherwise, there was no Gazette notification and hence, appointment of Appropriate Authority was not considered to be proper. Apart from above, it was further submitted that although Gazette notification dated 21.09.2010 was issued by the State Government for nominating Dr. Param Naveep Singh, MLA, Sangariya, Hanumangarh as member of Appropriate Authority under the Act of 1994, yet such notification was only for the period of three years from the date of issuance of notification and since notification was dated 21.09.2010, the authority of Dr. Param Navdeep Singh, if any, came to an end on 20.09.2013. 24. In order to press his submission with regard to fact that the complainant, Madanlal Sharma in the instant case had no authority to file complaint against the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order dated 11.11.2013 was issued by one Smt. Gayatri Rathore in the capacity of State Appropriate Authority and not by the State Government, whereby one Kishnaram Isarwal, Deputy Director (RCH) and Anil Rai, Additional Superintendent of Police, PCPNDT were authorised to file complaint for violation of the provisions of the Act of 1994 and in the same order, complainant Madanlal Sharma was authorised only for the purpose of search and seizure under Section 29(2) of the Act of 1994. On the same date, another order dated 11.11.2013 was issued whereby search team was constituted and the complainant Madanlal Sharma was also made a member of search team. On the same date, another order dated 11.11.2013 was issued whereby search team was constituted and the complainant Madanlal Sharma was also made a member of search team. By referring to the aforesaid documents, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the fact that the complaint can be made only by the Appropriate Authority or by an officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government, in the instant case, complaint has been filed by the complainant Madanlal Sharma, who is neither the Appropriate Authority as provided under Section 17 of the Act of 1994, nor an officer authorised for the purpose of filing complaint either by the State Government or by the Central Government. Learned counsel, in support of his arguments, relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Central Bureau of Investigation, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Vs. Indra Bhushan Singh & Others (2014) 12 SCC 100 and Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of Haryana , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2495. 25. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition by submitting that the complainant Madanlal Sharma was duly authorised by the Appropriate Authority and hence, was competent to lodge the complaint. It was also submitted that in the cases where a separate complaint has been framed and filed, merely for the reason that such complaint has got reference of the police report pursuant to earlier FIR, would not make it incompetent complaint and the same cannot be quashed only on this ground. 26. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the material on record. 27. It is settled preposition of law that in case any statute provides for doing a thing in a particular manner, that can be done only in that manner and not otherwise, more particularly, when it comes to prosecute a person for criminal offence as it is also settled that the provisions of criminal statutes are to be construed strictly and no deviation is permissible under the law. 28. As already observed hereinabove while deciding S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4985/2019 that cognizance for commission of offence under the Act of 1994 and the Rules made thereunder can be taken only on a complaint filed either by Appropriate Authority or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. 29. 28. As already observed hereinabove while deciding S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4985/2019 that cognizance for commission of offence under the Act of 1994 and the Rules made thereunder can be taken only on a complaint filed either by Appropriate Authority or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. 29. Mode and manner of appointment of Appropriate Authority has been provided in Section 17 of the Act of 1994. Perusal of alleged authorisation orders authorizing Madanlal Sharma to lodge criminal complaint would show that admittedly, Madanlal Sharma was not member of the Appropriate Authority and the aforesaid orders would also reveal that no order whatsoever has been passed either by the Central Government or the State Government authorizing him for the purpose of filing complaint. Order dated 11.11.2013 (Annexure-6) has been issued by the Chairman of State Appropriate Authority authorizing other officers to lodge complaint or to conduct search and seizure. Firstly, such authorisation could have been made either by the Central Government or the State Government and not by Chairman of the State Appropriate Authority and secondly, such authorisation order would also reveal that Madanlal Sharma has been authorised only for the purpose of search and seizure and not for the purpose of filing complaint as order dated 11.11.2013 itself would make it clear that for the purpose of filing complaint, two officer other than Madanlal Sharma have been authorised. Thus, it is clear that complaint has been filed by the complainant Madanlal Sharma without there being any authorisation in his favour authorizing him to file complaint under the Act of 1994. 30. In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Vs. Indra Bhushan Singh & Others (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the complaint filed only on the ground that the complainant therein was not authorised person. In the case of Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (supra) , where authorisation was not made in the manner prescribed under the Act of 1994, entire proceedings initiated at the behest of such unauthorised person were quashed narrating the same to be abuse of process of law. 31. In the case of Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (supra) , where authorisation was not made in the manner prescribed under the Act of 1994, entire proceedings initiated at the behest of such unauthorised person were quashed narrating the same to be abuse of process of law. 31. Thus, from the analysis of facts, provisions of law and the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as mentioned hereinabove, it is clear that the impugned complaint has been lodged by an unauthorised person and, therefore, continuing the prosecution of the petitioner based on incompetent complaint made by an unauthorised person would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, this Court deems it just and proper to quash and set aside Criminal Complaint No. 7/2014 pending before the Court of Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (PCPNDT Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur along with all the subsequent proceedings initiated pursuant to that complaint and the same are, hereby, quashed and set aside qua the petitioner, Dr. Yogesh Kumar. 32. Both the criminal misc. petitions are allowed in the manner as indicated above. 33. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed off. 34. Office is directed to place a copy of this judgment on record of connected criminal misc. petition.