Back
Karnataka HC Stands Firm: No for Alleged Sex Determination Ring in Tragic Foeticide Case
In a strongly worded judgment, the dismissed petitions seeking to quash criminal proceedings against two alleged agents and a government hospital radiologist accused of facilitating illegal prenatal sex determination. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, delivering the common order on , in
Criminal Petition Nos. 884/2026
and
14326/2025
, ruled that
materials reveal a
"chilling and interconnected chain of facts"
leading to the death of a female foetus, underscoring the gravity of female foeticide as a
"moral blight and constitutional affront."
The case stems from events in Ramanagara district, spotlighting a couple already parents to two daughters who allegedly sought to determine the sex of their third child.
The Shadow Network Behind the Scan
On , Smt. Harsitha, pregnant with her third child, and her husband reportedly contacted relatives and intermediaries—identified as accused Lakshmi (No.2), Bhagyamma (No.3), Sardamma (No.4, petitioner in CP 884/2026), and Dasegowda (No.5, her husband and co-petitioner)—to arrange an ultrasound at . A clandestine code emerged: Sardamma's name was written on Harsitha's hand as a signal to radiologist Dr. Shashi S.L. (petitioner in CP 14326/2025, accused No.1 there), indicating an illicit sex determination scan.
The scan allegedly confirmed a female foetus, information relayed through the agents after a Rs.25,000 payment. Harsitha was then directed to a Bengaluru clinic (Dnanish Polyclinic, accused No.6), given Misoprostol tablets, and sent home. That night, profuse bleeding led to the foetus's death, prompting a complaint by the on .
This triggered Crime No. 286/2025 () under , and . Separately, PCR No. 401/2024 led to CC No. 2519/2025 under .
As reported by The Hindu , investigators uncovered evidence like witness statements, CCTV footage, seized registers showing irregularities (e.g., manual Form Fs, blank signatures), and confessions from agents Lakshmi and Bhagyamma, pointing to a broader "coterie" in Ramanagara and Channapatna.
Petitioners Cry Foul, Prosecution Pushes for Trial
The agents (Sardamma and Dasegowda) argued no direct link to the events, claiming hearsay allegations and lack of evidence tying them to the scan or abortion. Dr. Shashi contended he only performed a permissible scan, not sex determination, and challenged for lacking judicial mind application and violating PCPNDT procedures (e.g., no prior notice).
countered vehemently: the complaints were
"lucid in narration, precise in detail,"
with voluntary confessions, financial trails (Rs.19,000 to Dasegowda), and documents proving conspiracy. He highlighted rampant sex-selective practices in the area, insisting trial was essential to unravel the "
."
Court's Razor-Sharp Reasoning: Chains Unbreakable
Justice Nagaprasanna meticulously dissected the complaints, rejecting
under
. He affirmed the magistrate's
order in CC 2519/2025, noting it crossed the low threshold of
"allegations if taken at face value disclose an offence."
Drawing on Supreme Court precedents, the court invoked Rekha Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 3 SCC 729, quoting its preamble analysis of PCPNDT's fight against patriarchal biases, declining sex ratios, and international censure. The ruling echoed Voluntary Health Assn. of Punjab v. Union of India (2013) 4 SCC 1, criticizing lax enforcement and urging vigilance against "mushrooming" clinics.
The judge emphasized: leniency here would make PCPNDT a "," emboldening violators. Agents weren't "passive"; they were "conduits" in a "concerted design."
Key Observations
"The sequence of events... discloses a chilling and interconnected chain of facts that culminated in extinguishment of a nascent life. The complaint... is neither vague nor speculative... lucid in narration, precise in its detail and grave in its import."
"None of them can declare themselves to be innocent at this stage... Each accused is alleged to have played a distinct yet independent role... forming a seamless continuum of culpability."
"Female foeticide is not merely a statutory offence, it is a moral blight and a constitutional affront."
"Interference at this stage... would amount to throttling a legitimate prosecution in its infancy."
Proceedings Live On: A Warning to Gender Offenders
The petitions stand dismissed, with observations limited to stage. This allows trials to proceed, potentially exposing a wider network as media reports suggest. The ruling reinforces zero tolerance for prenatal sex selection, signaling courts' resolve to protect the girl child amid ongoing societal battles against skewed sex ratios.
For the accused, the path leads to trial; for society, a reminder that medical cloaks can't hide gender prejudice.
