Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MANOJ MISRA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana And Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1058 of 2026 (Arising Out Of SLP (Criminal) No. 5915 of 2025)
Decided On : 23-02-2026
(A) Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 – Sections 3, 3A, 4, 5, 6, 23 and 29 – Pre-Conception and Pre Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 – Rules 9 and 10 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 468(2)(c) and 482 – Sex determination test – Summoning order – It is mandatory for person conducting Ultrasonography on a pregnant woman to keep complete record relating to Ultrasonography in clinic – Determination of sex is completely prohibited – Delay of one day in filing of complaint was condoned by Magistrate – There is infraction of Section 30 of PCPNDT Act qua search carried out by respondents – While search may be illegal, materials or evidence gathered or collected in course of such search can still be acted or relied upon subject to rule of relevancy and test of admissibility – Unless there is express or necessarily implied prohibition in law, evidence obtained as a result of illegal search or seizure is not liable to be shut out – There is no contravention of Rule 18A(2)(ii) of PCPNDT Rules. (Paras 21.1, 23, 33, 48, 50, 53 and 55)
(B) Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 – Sections 3, 3A, 4, 5, 6, 23 and 29 – Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 – Rules 9 and 10 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Sex determination test – Summoning order – Discrimination against women, more particularly against girl child, is widely prevalent across several parts of country – Female foeticide is a crude manifestation of such a social malady – Parliament has stepped in not only outlawing sex determination and selection but also prohibiting all related pre-conception and pre-natal techniques and procedures, making it mandatory to maintain relevant record in prescribed format – Non-maintenance of record in prescribed form would be an offence under PCPNDT Act and Rules – In so far present case is concerned, it has come on record that appellant had conducted Ultrasonography on pregnant woman – Whether or not he has maintained record as required under law in addition to non-disclosure of sex of foetus is a matter for trial – It is not a case where trial should be nipped in bud – Criminal complaint cannot be quashed. (Paras 56 and 57)
Facts of the case:
Appellant as petitioner had filed a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of complaint filed under various provisions of Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 as well as summoning order dated 12.09.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram. However, vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.07.2024, High Court dismissed the petition.
Findings of Court:
Criminal complaint pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram cannot be quashed. No interference is called for in impugned judgment and order of High Court.
Result : Criminal appeal dismissed.
Here are the key points from the legal document:
JUDGMENT :
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.07.2024 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (briefly ‘the High Court’ hereinafter) in CRM-M No. 52858 of 2022 (Naresh Kumar Garg Vs. State of Haryana).
3. It may be mentioned that appellant as the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (briefly ‘the Cr.P.C.’ hereinafter) for quashing of the complaint bearing No. COMA/116/2018 dated 19.09.2018 filed under various provisions of the Pre- Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (briefly, ‘the PCPNDT Act’ hereinafter) as well as the summoning order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram. However, vide the impugned judgment and order dated 24.07.2024, the High Court dismissed the aforesaid petition.
4. At the outset, a brief recital of the relevant facts would be in order.
5. It is stated that appellant is a qualified radiologist by profession.
5.1. On 17.09.2015, Chairman, District Appropriate Authority-cum-Civil Surgeon, Gurugram, Dr. Pushpa Bishnoi received a complaint from a lady named Smt. Rajni to the effect that she knew a person called Dr. Abdul Kadir of Geetanjali Hospital in Badshahpur who was allegedly running a racket of illegal sex-determination. On receipt of such a complaint, the Chairman constituted a three- member team alongwith support staff to conduct a raid and investigate the complaint against the said Dr. Abdul Kadir.
5.2. A pregnant lady named Smt. Suman had come to the Civil Hospital, Gurugram for her routine checkup on 17.09.2015. Dr. Saryu Sharma, who was a member of the team constituted by the Chairman, approached her and apprised her about the complaint against Dr. Abdul Kadir. Dr. Sharma requested her if she could help the authority by becoming a decoy patient in the proposed raid. The lady Smt. Suman agreed to the proposal and gave her written consent to become a decoy patient.
5.3. Thereafter, shadow witness Rajni was asked to call Dr. Abdul Kadir and to ask him for sex-determination of her relative i.e. the decoy patient Smt. Suman. Dr. Kadir was informed that Smt. Suman was pregnant and that she wanted to know the sex of her foetus. Dr. Abdul Kadir agreed to the proposal but demanded Rs. 25,000.00 for carrying out sex-determination of the foetus and thereafter to disclose the same. Shadow witness Rajni agreed to pay the same.
5.4. Dr. Saryu Sharma gave Rs. 25,000.00 (Rs. 1,000 into 25 notes) to shadow witness Rajni whereafter Smt. Suman accompanied by shadow witness Rajni went to Sector 56, Gurugram (near Badshahpur) to meet Dr. Abdul Kadir, who came after some time in his vehicle. Dr. Kadir asked the two of them to sit in his vehicle whereafter he was paid Rs. 25,000.00. He started driving his vehicle towards Vatika Medicare in Sector 45, Gurugram. After talking with someone over phone, he told the two of them that he had a word with one Dr. Naresh Garg, a radiologist, at Vatika Medicare who would conduct the ultrasound on the patient in order to determine the sex of her foetus. Dr. Kadir informed the two ladies that Dr. Naresh Garg would neither ask the patient to sign any document nor would he sign Form F. Dr. Kadir further clarified that Dr. Naresh Garg would not make any entry of the patient in the register and that he would provide the patient the ultrasound report without putting his signature within a day or two.
5.5. It may be mentioned that the team constituted by the Chairman was following the vehicle of Dr. Abdul Kadir. When Dr. Kadir and the two ladies reached Vatika Medicare, he asked the patient to go to the room of the ultrasonologist to get her ultrasound done. It is the case of the complainant that the ultrasound on patient Suman was conducted by Dr. Naresh Garg himself. Dr. Garg neither signed Form F nor did he ask Smt. Suman to sign any document. He also did no
(1) Sex determination test – Summoning order – It is mandatory for person conducting Ultrasonography on a pregnant woman to keep complete record relating to Ultrasonography in clinic – Determination ....
Procedural safeguards must be strictly adhered to in actions taken under the PCPNDT Act as arbitrary actions undermine the statutory framework.
Sex Determination Test – Continuing prosecution based on an illegal search will amount to abuse of process of law – If law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, same shall be....
Important Points – (1) Court cannot conduct mini trial at the time of framing charge.(2) Doing prohibited sex determination test – Examining women patient through ultrasound procedure and not maintai....
The court upheld the prima facie evidence against one petitioner under the PCPNDT Act while dismissing the complaint against the other due to lack of incriminating evidence.
The court affirmed that complaints under the PC & PNDT Act must be filed by designated authorities and that sufficient grounds are required for trial without conducting a full evidentiary examination....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
