THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.7411 of 2022

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-

accused Nos.1 to 6 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.2394 of 2022 on the file of the learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad, registered for the violation of Rules 9 and 10 of the Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Rules, 1996 (for short ‘Rules 1996’) and Rule 13 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1996 (for short ‘the PNDT Act’) and for the offence under Section 23 of the PNDT Act, 1996.

02. Heard Mr.A.Prabhakar Ravo, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 and Mrs.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State-respondent No.1. No representation on behalf of the respondent No.2. Perused the record.

03. Brief facts of the case are that the accused No.1 is the Registered Diagnostic Service Centre Hospital under the name and style of M/s.Parkline Diagnostic Services represented by the accused No.2-Director, the accused Nos.3 to 6 are Doctors (Radiologists) working in the accused No.1-hospital. On 19.08.2019 the Additional District Medical and Health Officer inspected the accused No.1-hospital along with the National Institute of Medical Statistics and Coordination (NIMC) team and found that there were some violations with regard to non-availment of declaration from Doctor under Form-F and non- mentioning of pregnant women who underwent ultra sound scan in the months of June and July, 2019 and there is no mention of delivery history of pregnant women. PC&PNDT Register is also not maintained properly which is mandatory as per the Rules, 1996. Thereby, the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 are liable for the violations of the Rules, 1996 and the provisions of the PNDT Act, 1996.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged violations and offence. He further submits that all the allegations levelled against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 are false and baseless. There is no preliminary enquiry conducted by the Appropriate Authority and Advisory Committee as required under Section 17 of the PNDT Act. The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 had never conducted any ultra sound scan and no pregnant women undergone deliveries in accused No.1-hospital, as such there are no records of images of scan of pregnant women and previous history of delivery of pregnant women in Form-F. There is no proper evidence collected by the respondent No.2 for launching prosecution against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6. Hence, he prayed to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-

accused Nos.1 to 6.

05. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State contended there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition.

06. This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for either side. Normally, pre-natal diagnostic techniques, which means and includes all pre-natal diagnostic procedures and pre-natal diagnostic tests would be carried out by the Radiologists. The PNDT Act mandates that unless registered under the PNDT Act, no Genetic Counselling Centre or Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic shall conduct or associate with, or help in conducting activities relating to pre-natal diagnostic techniques. It is to be noted that it is not the case of respondent No.2 that the petitioners are running the diagnostic centre without any registration or permission from competent authority.

07. Further, the liability of the Directors and other employees of the hospital and their responsibility, whether they can be held