##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14536 OF 2025

DATE:30-12-2025

Between:

Vittam Sucharitha

… Petitioner

And

The State of Telangana,

Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,

High Court of Telangana

at Hyderabad and another

... Respondents

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.9

seeking to quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No.229 of

2025 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kamareddy, registered for the offences under Sections 312, 317

and 420 read with 34 I.P.C., Sections 80, 81 and 87 of Juvenile

Justice Act, 2015 and Sections 22, 23 and 24 of Pre-Conception

and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994.

Crl.P.No.14536 of 2025

2. Heard Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner herein is accused No.9; that she is not involved in the

alleged offence of conducting pre-natal diagnostic tests; and that

she is a Dentist in the Samanvitha Hospital. He further submitted

that the petitioner’s name is not mentioned either in the complaint

or in the F.I.R., but her name is figured in the charge sheet, even

though there are no allegations against her. He, therefore,

prayed to quash the proceedings in the present C.C. against the

petitioner herein. Learned counsel, in support of his submissions,

has relied upon the judgment of the Orissa High Court in Nilu @

Pratap Kumar Mohaptra v. State of Orissa, 2004 CrLJ 2261 and the judgment

of this Court in Madagoni Venkataiah v. The State of

Telangana, ETD,J

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the

petitioner herein is the Director of the said Hospital and without

taking any permission for conducting the Pre-Natal Diagnostic

2 2025 Supreme (Online)(Tel) 11383

3 ETD,J

Crl.P.No.14536 of 2025

Tests, they have been operating the machine and doing the said

diagnostic tests. Therefore, the petitioner has to face the

prosecution. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal

Petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The allegations point out that the petitioner herein-accused

No.9, who is the Director of Samanvitha Hospital, has not taken

permission for Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP); has not

maintained any records; and has not followed the PCPNDT

Rules. Thus, prima facie case is made out against the petitioner

herein. The petitioner’s counsel contends that there is no

material against the petitioner herein. But the recitals of the

charge sheet point out that the petitioner herein is the Director of

Samanvitha Hospital and that without obtaining any permission,

Pre-Natal Diagnostic Tests and Medical Termination of

Pregnancy have been carried out in the said Hospital. The truth

or otherwise in the allegations shall be culled out only after a full-

fledged trial.

7. In Nilu @ Pratap Kumar Mohaptra‘s case (supra 1) and

Madagoni Venkataiah’s case (supra 2), the proceedings against

4 ETD,J

Crl.P.No.14536 of 2025

the accused therein were quashed on the ground that there is no

material on record and that there are no allegations in the

complaint or in the charge sheet against the accused therein.

But, in the present case, material is collected against the

petitioner during the course of investigation and the allegations

point out prima facie case against the petitioner herein.

Therefore, the facts of the said cases differ from the case on

hand. Hence, the same are not applicable to the present case.

8. In view of the above held discussion, it is opined that the

Criminal Petition lacks merit for quashing the proceedings. In the

facts and circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of

the petition by dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing

with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial Court

provided she is represented by a counsel