1. Appeal against quashing proceeding involving alleged professional contraventions of a law prohibiting sex selection, arising from a search conducted by an individual authority member. (Para 3 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 187
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
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Shubham Bhalla, AOR Mr. Yajur Bhalla, Adv. Ms. Gauri Bedi, Adv. Ms. Ragini Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neha Verma, Adv. Mr. Yash, Adv. Mr. Aman Khatri, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Neeraj, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Ms. Jyotsna Vyas, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv. Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Mr. Vikramaditya Chauhan, Adv.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Shubham Bhalla, AOR Mr. Yajur Bhalla, Adv. Ms. Gauri Bedi, Adv. Ms. Ragini Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neha Verma, Adv. Mr. Yash, Adv. Mr. Aman Khatri, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Neeraj, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Ms. Jyotsna Vyas, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv. Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Mr. Vikramaditya Chauhan, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 of sex is completely prohibited.
(2) 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.
Headnote:
(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.
Judgement Key Points
Here are the key points from the legal document:
- It is mandatory for individuals conducting ultrasonography on pregnant women to maintain complete records of the procedure within the clinic. (!)
- The determination of a fetus's sex is strictly prohibited. (!)
- Even if a search is deemed illegal, any evidence or materials gathered during that search can still be used if they are relevant and admissible. (!)
- The Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, and its associated rules aim to prevent sex selection and female feticide, which are social issues prevalent in the country. (!)
- Non-maintenance of records in the prescribed format constitutes an offense under the PCPNDT Act and Rules. (!)
- The court found that the appellant conducted an ultrasonography on a pregnant woman, and whether the required records were maintained and the sex of the fetus was not disclosed are matters to be determined during a trial. (!)
- The criminal complaint should not be quashed at this stage. (!)
- The criminal complaint pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, cannot be quashed. (!)
- No interference is warranted with the High Court's judgment and order. (!)
- The criminal appeal has been dismissed. (!)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- crime and sentencing
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contends the search and ensuing complaint are void due to non-collective authorization by the statutory authority, while the state asserts substantial compliance and valid statutory independence. (Para 11 )
3. Evidence obtained from an illegal search remains admissible if relevant, provided the search illegality itself does not invalidate the seizure, and complaints are independent of police discharge. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 56 )
4. A search authorized by a individual member of a multi-member appropriate authority instead of the collective body is illegal, but evidence gathered therefrom remains admissible if relevant. (Para 41 , 50 , 53 )
5. Appeal dismissed; criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate allowed to proceed to trial, keeping all contentions on evidence admissibility open. (Para 57 , 58 )
6. Does an authorization for search and seizure by a single member of a multi-member appropriate authority violate the governing Act?
Yes. The authoritative decision to exercise search powers under the Act must be collective. A single member, including the Chairperson, acting alone to authorize a search renders the search illegal as it violates the statutory mandate for collective authority. (Para 41 , 45 )
7. Does an illegal search and seizure automatically render the seized evidence inadmissible at trial?
No. The illegality of a search does not automatically exclude relevant evidence obtained therein. Unless an express statutory prohibition exists, evidence obtained via an illegal search is admissible, though the court may exercise discretion to exclude it if strict rules of admissibility operate unfairly against the accused. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 )
8. Does a police discharge order preclude the filing of a subsequent statutory complaint by the appropriate authority?
No. A police discharge operates only on the criminal investigation conducted by police. The appropriate authority holds independent statutory power to initiate prosecution through a formal complaint, provided it complies with the Act's requirements for cognizance. (Para 46 , 54 )
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
