Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1462

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
NARESH KUMAR GARG – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF HARYANA – Respondent
Crl.A. No.-001058-001058 - 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Bhalla
For the Respondents: Neeraj

Evidence gathered during an illegal search is not automatically inadmissible; provided it is relevant and satisfies the test of admissibility, it can be relied upon in criminal proceedings. Procedural illegality in search authorization does not affect the statutory authority to prosecute for substantive violations based on the recovered evidence.

Headnote:(A) Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 - Sections 4, 5, 6, 17, 23, 28, 30 - Rules 9, 10, 18A - Search and Seizure - Authorization of search - Decision to conduct search must be a collective decision by the appropriate authority - Exercise of power by a single member including the Chairperson is illegal - However, evidence collected during an illegal search remains admissible subject to the test of relevance and the court’s discretion - Illegality of search does not automatically invalidate the subsequent criminal complaint. (Paras 41, 45, 50-53)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of proceedings - Discharge in police case versus complaint case - Discharge in a criminal case based on police report does not bar the maintainability of a subsequent statutory complaint under the Act - Statutory authority to initiate prosecution persists independent of police findings. (Paras 46, 54)

Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged a complaint and summoning order for alleged violations of the Act and Rules. A raid was conducted on the clinic where the appellant worked, resulting in the seizure of records. Initially, police registered an FIR, but after investigation, the appellant was discharged by the trial court. Subsequently, an appropriate authority initiated a formal complaint regarding the same incident for deficiencies in mandatory record-keeping. The appellant contended that the search was illegal as it was authorized by a single member and that the subsequent complaint was barred by the previous discharge.

Findings of Court:
The court held that while the search was indeed illegal for being authorized by a single member rather than the collective authority, this illegality did not render the gathered evidence inadmissible. Furthermore, the court clarified that statutory complaint proceedings are independent of police investigations and a previous discharge does not preclude the lodging of a formal complaint when evidence of statutory contravention exists.

Issues: The primary issues were whether a search authorized by a individual member of an authority is valid and whether evidence obtained from an illegal search is admissible in a complaint proceeding, and whether a previous discharge in an FIR case bars a subsequent statutory complaint.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that although a search must be authorized collectively by the statutory authority, illegal search does not necessitate the exclusion of relevant and admissible evidence. Furthermore, the court emphasized that maintaining prescribed records is a mandatory statutory duty, and failure forms a distinct basis for prosecution regardless of prior investigative outcomes.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

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 not sign the ultraso

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1462

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANNARESH KUMAR GARG – AppellantVersusTHE STATE OF HARYANA – RespondentCrl.A. No.-001058-001058 - 2026

Cases Referred (5)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
NARESH KUMAR GARG – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF HARYANA – Respondent
Crl.A. No.-001058-001058 - 2026