HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 15906 of 2025 DATE: 03.12.2025 Between :

Vittam Sucharitha ....Petitioner/Accused No.6 AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad and another ....Respondents : O R D E R :

This criminal petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.6 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.44 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy, for the offences under Sections 3(3), 3A, 6(b)(c) and 23(1)(s) of the Pre- conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (for short, ‘the PCPNDT Act’) and Rules 6(6) and 8 of the Pre Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition and Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (for short, ‘the PCPNDT Rules’).

2. Heard Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the offences and she was falsely implicated in the present crime based upon the confessional statement given by the other accused. There are no allegations, much less specific allegations, levelled against the petitioner to attract the ingredients for the offences under Sections 3(3), 3A, 6(b)(c) and 23(1)(s) of the PCPNDT Act and Rules 6(6) and 8 of the PCPNDT of the Rules. He further submitted that entire allegations are levelled against accused Nos.1 to 3 only. The petitioner has not conducted any test regarding pre-natal sex determination, as alleged in the complaint or final report and the ultrasound scanning machines in question were seized from the possession of the other accused. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner. The Investigating Officer after conducting the investigation and recording the statement of LW.7, Nyamthabad Rajkumar, filed a final report, wherein the role of the petitioner was specifically mentioned that she had conducted ultrasound scanning on the victims for the purpose of pre-natal sex determination by receiving huge amount and the ingredients for the offences under Sections 3(3), 3A, 6(b)(c) and 23(1)(s) of the PCPNDT Act and Rules 6(6) and 8 of the PCPNDT Rules are attracted. The grounds, which are raised by the petitioner, have to be adjudicated by the trial Court after full-fledged trial. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.44 of 2025.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the complaint, statement of LW.7, Nyamthabad Raj Kumar, and final report, it clearly reveals that there are specific allegations against the petitioner to attract the ingredients for the offences under Sections 3(3), 3A, 6(b)(c) and 23(1)(s) of the PCPNDT Act and Rules 6(6) and 8 of the PCPNDT Rules. The contentions and grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are disputed facts and the same have to be adjudicated and decided by the trial Court after full-fledged trial and the same cannot be adjudicated in the present criminal petition. Hence, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the petitioner being a woman, the presence of the petitioner in C.C.No.44 of 2025 is dispensed with, unless her presence is specifically required subject to the condition that the petitioner shall represent through her counsel on each and every date of hearing. In case of non-appearance of the petitioner on the specific date so fixed by the trial Court for her appearanc