Renu Deswal vs State Of Haryana And Others

CRM-M-5955-2022 (O&M) and one connected case -1-


IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH



1. CRM-M-5955-2022 (O&M)
Renu Deswal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents

2. CRM-M-65066-2023 (O&M)
Dr. Vinit Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents

Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 02.09.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 15.09.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 15.09.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full
4 Full
judgment is pronounced
The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not
5
reasons thereof applicable
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:- Mr. Ravinder Rana, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-5955-2022.

Mr. Amitabh Tewari, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-65066-2023.

Mr. Apoorv Garg, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. As both these petitions arise out of the same Criminal Complaint
bearing No. 295 of 2015, emanate from the same inspection conducted on

CRM-M-5955-2022 (O&M) and one connected case -2-

20.01.2014 at M/s Shri Balaji Imaging & Pathology Centre Pvt. Ltd.,
Bahadurgarh, and involve common questions of law and fact, the same are
being taken up and decided together by this common order.
2. Through the instant petitions, filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
the petitioners seek quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 295 of 2015 titled
District Appropriate Authority, PC & PNDT, Jhajjar v. Renu Deswal and
others , dated 07.05.2015, filed under Section 28 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-
Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (for
short, ‘the Act’) , pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Bahadurgarh, along with the consequential proceedings and summoning
order dated 19.03.2021, whereby the petitioners have been summoned to face
trial for commission of offences punishable under Sections 4, 5 and 6 read with
Section 23 and Section 29 read with Rules 9 and 10 of the PC&PNDT Rules,
1996.
3. The facts, as set out in the impugned complaint, are that M/s Shri
Balaji Imaging & Pathology Centre Pvt. Ltd., Bahadurgarh, was registered
under the PC&PNDT Act for conducting ultrasound examinations. On
20.01.2014, at about 11:30 a.m., on receipt of secret information, the District
Appropriate Authority constituted a team comprising Dr. Kumud Sharma,
Nodal Officer under the PC&PNDT Act-cum-Deputy Civil Surgeon, Jhajjar,
Dr. Madhulika, Dr. Nisha, Dr. Amit Kant, Shri Rakesh Dahiya and Kumari
Ganga Devi for inspection of the Centre. As per the allegations, Dr. Kumud
Sharma had been authorised to exercise the powers and act as Nodal Officer for
inspecting ultrasound centres and taking appropriate action in case of
contravention of the mandatory provisions of the Act. During raid, petitioner

CRM-M-5955-2022 (O&M) and one connected case -3-

Renu Deswal, Director of the Centre, was found present at the centre, whereas
Dr. Mahesh Chander Mishra was not present. During the inspection, the team
obtained a printout from the ultrasound machine showing 479 ultrasounds
conducted by the Centre. The complaint alleges that Renu Deswal did not
produce the record of the last two years, which was stated to be mandatory
under Rule 9(6) of the Rules. The record register was then inspected and
deficiencies were noticed, including absence of signatures of the radiologist
against certain entries, absence of the names of spouse/husband against various
entries, lack of page numbering and non-mentioning of the date of the first
report of the patient referred to the ultrasound centre.
4. It is further alleged in the complaint that 40 Form-Fs and referral
slips were found to have various deficiencies. Some Form-Fs/referral slips were
not signed by the doctor, the full name and address of the doctor were not
mentioned and in certain cases, the ultrasound report was signed by Dr. Mahesh
Chander Mishra though the ultrasound was stated to have been conducted by
Dr. Vinit Gupta-petitioner. One of the allegations was that an ultrasound had
been advised on 26.06.2013 but was conducted on 23.09.2013. The complaint
also states that the ultrasound report was required to be attached with every
Form-F. It is further stated in the complaint that persons from the locality had
gathered at the spot and were requested to join the inspection as witnesses but
none agreed to do so. FIR No. 30 dated 20.01.2014 was thereafter registered
and the ultrasound machine along with the original record was seized and
handed over to the police. The site plan and recovery memo were prepared. The
complaint alleges further deficiencies in the Form-Fs and referral slips,
including incomplete entries, incorrect addresses of patients, failure to fill the

CRM-M-5955-2022 (O&M) and one connected case -4-

column relating to indications and non-maintenance of the declaration of Renu
Deswal under the Rules. The complaint further alleges that the matter was
considered in the meetings of the District Appropriate Authority/District
Advisory Committee. The registration of the Centre was suspended on
29.01.2014 and show cause notices were subsequently issued. The complaint
alleges that the proceedings before the Authority followed the inspection and
the alleged violations detected therein. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations,
the impugned complaint was filed under Section 28 of the Act against the
accused persons, including the present petitioners, alleging commission of
offences under the provisions of the Act and the Rules.
5. It is also relevant to notice that the original summoning order dated
07.05.2015 was challenged before the learned revisional Court. The revisional
Court, vide order dated 08.09.2017, set aside the said order, primarily noticing
that the summoning order did not disclose adequate reasons and remitted the
matter to the learned Magistrate for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Pursuant thereto, the learned Magistrate reconsidered the matter and passed a
fresh summoning order dated 19.03.2021. The challenge, therefore, has to be
examined with reference to the fresh order dated 19.03.2021 and the material
available before the learned Magistrate at the relevant stage. Aggrieved from
filing of the complaint and their summoning thereof, the petitioners have filed
these petitions.
6. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the
impugned complaint and the consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed
as the very initiation of the complaint is contrary to the scheme of the Act. It
has been argued that the impugned complaint has been filed by the Deputy

CRM-M-5955-2022 (O&M) and one connected case -5-

Civil Surgeon-cum-Nodal Officer, purportedly on behalf of the Chairman,
District Appropriate Authority, whereas the District Appropriate Authority is a
three-member statutory body. There is no material on record to show that the
three-member District Appropriate Authority, as such, had taken a decision to
institute the complaint or had validly authorised the complainant to do so.
Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court in Dr. Anil Bansal v.
District Appropriate Authority, Gurugram, CRM-M-18417-2018, decided on
24.02.2020 to submit that the statutory functions of the Appropriate Authority
cannot be exercised by an individual officer in the absence of lawful
authorisation. A reference is also made to Section 28(1)(a) of the Act to
contend that only the Appropriate Authority concerned or any officer
authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or State Government, as
the case may be, or the Appropriate Authority was competent to file the
complaint. However, the present complaint was solely filed by Dr. Raj Karan,
Nodal Officer.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further argued that the
inspection/search conducted at the premises of the said centre on 20.01.2014
was itself without the authority contemplated under Section 30 of the Act. It has
been submitted that the power of search and seizure is vested in the Appropriate
Authority and, in the facts of the present case, the requisite decision or
satisfaction of the three-member District Appropriate Authority authorising
such search is not shown to have been recorded. An individual officer could not
have assumed the power of the District Appropriate Authority and proceeded to
conduct the inspection/search merely on the basis of secret information, which
was not in consonance with the mandate of Section 30 of the Act. It has further

CRM-M-5955-2022 (O&M) and one connected case -6-

been argued that the entire prosecution case substantially rests upon the
material allegedly collected during the inspection conducted on 20.01.2014,
including the ultrasound records, Form-Fs, registers and other documents
allegedly seized from the premises. Learned counsel has submitted that when
the foundational search itself was without the requisite statutory authorisation,
the material collected pursuant thereto cannot be made the basis for continuing
the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. Reliance in this regard has
been placed upon Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2024 INSC 684 .
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further argued that the
procedure contemplated for a search was not duly followed. It is submitted that
although the inspection team allegedly requested local persons to join the
proceedings, no independent person was associated with the search, seizure or
recovery proceedings. The entire exercise was carried out by the officials of the
department and, therefore, the alleged recoveries and discrepancies recorded by
the inspection team require to be viewed with caution. Reliance has been placed
upon State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others, (2012) (1)
RCR (Criminal) 126 to contend that if a legal action is not in consonance with
law, then all subsequent proceedings would fall through for the reason that
illegality strikes at the root.
9. It has further been argued that the allegations regarding the Form-
Fs and other records do not establish the commission of the offences alleged
against the petitioners. Learned counsel have submitted that the complaint
contains several alleged discrepancies in the records but there is no specific
material showing conscious violation of the provisions of Sections 4, 5 or 6 of
the Act by the petitioners. It is argued that the criminal process cannot be

CRM-M-5955-2022 (O&M) and one connected case -7-

permitted to continue merely on the basis of technical or procedural
deficiencies in the records.
10. Learned counsel for petitioner Dr. Vinit Gupta has, in addition,
argued that he had already resigned from the concerned centre on 31.10.2013,
whereas the inspection in question was conducted on 20.01.2014. It is
submitted that, after his resignation, he had no connection with the day-to-day
functioning of the centre and could not, therefore, be held responsible for the
alleged violations noticed during the inspection. Learned counsel has
particularly submitted that Dr. Vinit Gupta was not even present at the time of
the inspection and the complaint does not attribute to him any role in the
inspection proceedings. His implication is, therefore, wholly unjustified.
11. It has been further argued on behalf of Dr. Vinit Gupta that the
mere reference in the complaint to certain ultrasound examinations allegedly
conducted by him does not establish that he was responsible for the alleged
deficiencies noticed in the records on 20.01.2014, particularly when he had
already left the centre much before the date of inspection. The subsequent
records and alleged irregularities could not be attributed to him in the absence
of specific material connecting him with the functioning of the centre after
31.10.2013. With these broad submissions, it is jointly urged by learned
counsel for the petitioners that the petitions deserve to be allowed and the
impugned complaint along with all the subsequent proceedings is liable to be
quashed.
12. Replies have been filed by the respondents-State. On the strength
of the same, Mr. Apoorv Garg, Additional Advocate General, Haryana has
argued that the petitions are devoid of any merit. It has been submitted that the

CRM-M-5955-2022 (O&M) and one connected case -8-

present criminal complaint was not the unilateral act of the Nodal Officer. The
issue of prosecution was deliberated upon by the District Advisory Committee
as well as the three-member District Appropriate Authority, Jhajjar, and
thereafter the District Appropriate Authority authorised Dr. Raj Karan, Deputy
Civil Surgeon-cum-Nodal Officer, to institute the complaint. Thus, the
complaint was merely presented through an officer authorised by the competent
Authority. Learned State counsel has further argued that Section 28(1)(a) of the
Act expressly permits a complaint to be filed not only by the Appropriate
Authority but also by an officer authorised by the Central Government, State
Government or the Appropriate Authority. Reliance has been placed upon State
of M.P. v. Manvinder Singh Gill, SLP(Crl.) Nos. 2226 and 2229 of 2014,
decided on 03.08.2015 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the three
categories of persons competent to institute a complaint under Section 28(1)(a),
including an officer authorised by the Appropriate Authority. It has also been
argued that the issue of institution of a complaint through an authorised officer
has already been considered by this Court in Dr. Preetinder Kaur and others v.
State of Punjab and others , 2011 CriLJ 876 . The said judgment recognises
that an irregularity in the manner of institution of a complaint can be
subsequently ratified by the Appropriate Authority and such an irregularity, in
the absence of inherent lack of jurisdiction, would not justify quashing of the
proceedings. The present case stands on an even stronger footing as there was
deliberation by the members of the District Appropriate Authority followed by
express authorisation to file the complaint.
13. Learned State counsel has referred to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg v. State of Haryana and others, 2026 (2)

CRM-M-5955-2022 (O&M) and one connected case -9-

SCC (Cri) 177, decided on 23.02.2026 to argue that in the said case also the
legality of a search conducted pursuant to the decision of an individual member
of the District Appropriate Authority and the subsequent filing of a complaint
were examined. The Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that an infirmity in the
manner in which a search was authorised does not automatically vitiate the
subsequent complaint or render the material collected during such search
inadmissible. The legality of the search and the evidentiary value of the
material collected are distinct questions. The said judgment also held that an
independent complaint by the Appropriate Authority is not rendered
unsustainable merely because the police proceedings arising out of the same
incident have culminated in discharge or cancellation. Learned State counsel
has further argued that the petitioners cannot derive any benefit from the
judgment in Ravinder Kumar’s case (supra) at this stage. It has been submitted
that even if the question regarding the manner of authorisation of the
inspection/search is examined in the light of the said judgment, the same would
not automatically result in quashing of the present complaint, particularly when
the prosecution is also based upon the alleged deficiencies in the statutory
records, Form-Fs, registers and referral slips. In Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg’s
case (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has subsequently explained the
distinction between the legality of the search and the admissibility or
consideration of the material collected during such search.
14. Learned State counsel has also opposed the argument regarding
non-joining of independent witnesses. It has been submitted that persons from
the locality had gathered near the premises and the inspection team had
requested them to join the proceedings, but they expressed their inability or

CRM-M-5955-2022 (O&M) and one connected case -10-

reluctance to do so. Thus, this is not a case where the officials made no effort to
associate independent witnesses. Mere non-availability or non-joining of
independent witnesses does not demolish the prosecution case. Reliance in this
regard is placed upon Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC
696 and Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies of India
(FOGSI) v. Union of India, (2019) 6 SCC 283 .
15. So far as petitioner Dr. Vinit Gupta is concerned, learned State
counsel has specifically opposed the submission that his resignation from the
centre on 31.10.2013 absolves him of the allegations in the complaint. The
ultrasound reports dated 21.11.2013 and other reports bear the signatures of
Dr. M.C. Mishra but it was found that Dr. Vinit Gupta was the doctor who
conducted the ultrasounds. Thus, the material relied upon against Dr. Vinit
Gupta pertains to a period subsequent to the date of his alleged resignation.
Learned State counsel has, therefore, argued that the plea of resignation dated
31.10.2013 cannot be accepted as a conclusive defence at the stage of
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The question whether Dr.
Vinit Gupta had actually ceased to have any connection with the centre after the
alleged resignation and whether the ultrasound reports relied upon by the
respondents were in fact prepared pursuant to procedures conducted by him, are
matters which require examination of the relevant records and evidence.
Learned State counsel has lastly argued that the power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised sparingly and that, at the stage of
summoning, the Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case is
made out and not to undertake a detailed examination of the probative value of
the evidence. Reliance has been placed upon State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal ,

CRM-M-5955-2022 (O&M) and one connected case -11-

1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor , (2013) 3
SCC (Cri) 158 . It has been submitted that the defence sought to be raised by the
petitioners, including the alleged illegality/irregularity in the inspection, non-
joining of independent witnesses, earlier inspection being satisfactory and, in
the case of Dr. Vinit Gupta, his resignation, are matters which cannot be
conclusively adjudicated upon at this preliminary stage. With these broad
submissions, it is urged that the petitions are liable to be dismissed.
16. This Court has heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel
for the parties at considerable length, besides going through the material placed
on record.
17. Since the principal challenge is to the very competence of the
complaint and to the legality of the inspection conducted on 20.01.2014, it
would be appropriate to first notice the relevant statutory scheme. The
PC&PNDT Act is a social welfare legislation enacted to prohibit sex selection
and to regulate pre-natal diagnostic techniques so as to prevent their misuse for
determination of the sex of the foetus leading to female foeticide. The Honble
Supreme Court has recently reiterated this object in Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg’s
case (supra) by observing that the legislation seeks to protect the girl child and
that its provisions cannot be diluted in a manner which defeats its object.
18. Section 2(a) of the Act defines “Appropriate Authority” to mean
the authority appointed under Section 17. Section 17 is, therefore, of central
importance. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 17 contemplate constitution of
the Appropriate Authority by the State Government and, for the concerned part
of the State, the Authority is a multi-member statutory body. In the present
case, the notification dated 07.11.2013 constituted the District Appropriate

CRM-M-5955-2022 (O&M) and one connected case -12-

Authority for the district with the Civil Surgeon as Chairperson, District
Programme Officer, Women and Child Development Department, as Member
and District Attorney as Member. This is also the composition which came up
for consideration before the Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar’s case (supra) .
Section 17(4) prescribes the functions of the Appropriate Authority. Clauses
(c), (e) and (g) of this section are significant which empower the Authority to
investigate complaints of breach of the Act or the Rules and take immediate
action; to take appropriate legal action against the use of any sex selection
technique and initiate independent investigation; and to supervise
implementation of the Act and the Rules. Section 17(5), on the other hand,
provides for constitution of an Advisory Committee to aid and advise the
Appropriate Authority. The two bodies, therefore, have distinct statutory
functions. The Advisory Committee advises; the statutory power to investigate
and take legal action remains with the Appropriate Authority.
19. Section 17A of the Act further confers upon the Appropriate
Authority powers including summoning persons possessing information
relating to violation of the Act, requiring production of documents and material
objects and issuing search warrants for places suspected to be indulging in sex
selection techniques or pre-natal sex determination. Thus, the statutory scheme
does not leave enforcement of the Act to ordinary police machinery. It creates a
specialised statutory mechanism through the Appropriate Authority. Section 23
is the penal provision. In substance, it makes a medical geneticist,
gynaecologist, registered medical practitioner or a person owning or employed
in a Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic, who
renders professional or technical services and contravenes the Act or the Rules,

CRM-M-5955-2022 (O&M) and one connected case -13-

liable to punishment. The provision is deliberately wide enough to cover not
merely the owner of a centre but also persons who render professional or
technical services there. Section 28 of the Act assumes significance because it
regulates cognizance of offences under the Act. Section 28(1)(a) reads as under:
“No court shall take cognizance of an offence under this
Act except on a complaint made by—
(a) the Appropriate Authority concerned, or any officer
authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or
State Government, as the case may be, or the
Appropriate Authority;”
20. Thus, the aforementioned provision itself recognises an authorised
officer as a competent complainant. The question, therefore, is not whether a
complaint must physically bear the signatures of all the members of the three-
member District Appropriate Authority but whether the person who instituted
the complaint was authorised in accordance with law.
21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the scope of
Section 28(1)(a), has recognised that the provision permits institution of a
complaint by an officer authorised by the Appropriate Authority. The State has
relied upon Manvinder Singh Gill’s case (supra) in this regard. The statutory
language itself supports this submission. The provision does not insist that the
complaint must be signed jointly by every member of the Appropriate
Authority. What is material is the source and validity of the authority behind
the complaint. In the present case, the respondents have specifically pleaded
that the question of initiating prosecution was deliberated upon by the District
Appropriate Authority and, thereafter, Dr. Raj Karan, Deputy Civil Surgeon-
cum-Nodal Officer, was directed and authorised to institute the complaint on
behalf of the Authority. The complaint itself describes the complainant as the

CRM-M-5955-2022 (O&M) and one connected case -14-

Deputy Civil Surgeon-cum-Nodal Officer acting on behalf of the Chairman,
District Appropriate Authority. Thus, the allegation that the complaint was the
completely unilateral act of an officer having no authority whatsoever is not
borne out, at least at this stage, from the material placed before this Court.
22. More importantly, the State has submitted on affidavit that the
District Appropriate Authority had authorised Dr. Raj Karan to file the
complaint. This assertion has been made specifically and unequivocally in the
reply filed before this Court. The petitioners, despite having raised the objection
that the complaint was not instituted by the Appropriate Authority, have not
placed on record any material to show that Dr. Raj Karan was not so authorised.
At this stage, therefore, the Court cannot proceed on a mere presumption that
the complainant lacked authority, particularly when the statutory scheme itself
permits an officer authorised by the Appropriate Authority to institute a
complaint under Section 28(1)(a) of the Act. Whether the authority was in fact
conferred upon him is a matter to be examined with reference to the material
placed by the parties but the positive assertion of the State on affidavit, coupled
with absence of anything contrary from the petitioners, does not permit the
complaint to be held incompetent at the threshold.
23. The reliance of the petitioners upon Dr. Anil Bansal’s case
(supra) cannot result in quashing of the present proceedings at the threshold.
This judgment has to be applied to its own factual setting. More importantly,
the respondents in the present case have specifically asserted prior deliberation
and authorisation by the District Appropriate Authority. Whether the
minutes/resolution and the authorisation relied upon by the respondents
conclusively establish such authority is a matter capable of examination by the

CRM-M-5955-2022 (O&M) and one connected case -15-

trial Court on the evidence. At the stage of Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court
would not be justified in treating a disputed factual question as conclusively
established in favour of the petitioners. This conclusion also finds support from
Dr. Preetinder Kaur’s case (supra) . In that case, this Court examined an
objection regarding institution of proceedings through an officer and held, in
the factual setting of that case, that an irregularity in the mode of institution,
followed by deliberation and ratification by the Appropriate Authority, did not
warrant termination of the prosecution. The principle is not that every defect in
authorisation is automatically curable. The principle is that where the statutory
authority itself has taken cognizance of the matter and authorised or ratified the
action, the Court must distinguish an irregular mode of presentation from a
complete absence of jurisdiction.
24. The second principal objection relates to the inspection/search
conducted on 20.01.2014. In this regard, Section 30(1) of the Act is relevant,
which reads as under:
“If the Appropriate Authority has reason to believe that an
offence under this Act has been or is being committed at any
Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic
Clinic or any other place, such Authority or any officer
authorised thereof in this behalf may, subject to such rules
as may be prescribed, enter and search at all reasonable
times… and examine any record, register, document, book,
pamphlet, advertisement or any other material object found
therein and seize and seal the same if such Authority or
officer has reason to believe that it may furnish evidence of
the commission of an offence punishable under this Act.”
25. Section 30(2) further makes the provisions relating to search and
seizure under the Code of Criminal Procedure applicable, as far as may be, to

CRM-M-5955-2022 (O&M) and one connected case -16-

searches and seizures under the Act. There can be no dispute about the legal
proposition that the power under Section 30 is not an unregulated power. The
Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar’s case (supra) has authoritatively held that
where the Appropriate Authority is a multi-member body, the decision to take
action under Section 30 must be that of the Appropriate Authority collectively
and not of one of its members acting alone. It was specifically held that a
Chairman or any other individual member cannot, merely in that capacity,
authorise a search. The principle laid down in Ravinder Kumar’s case (supra)
is binding and has to be given full effect. At the same time, the ratio of that
judgment cannot be separated from the factual foundation upon which the relief
was granted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court itself has explained this aspect in the
subsequent judgment in Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg’s case (supra) . There too, the
search had been ordered by the Chairperson individually, without material
showing a collective decision of the District Appropriate Authority. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that such a search was illegal. However, it
separately examined whether that illegality necessarily resulted in destruction
of all material collected during the search and quashing of the complaint. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court expressly distinguished between the legality of the
search and the relevancy and admissibility of the material collected during the
search. It was held that even where the search is illegal, the material or
evidence collected in the course of such search cannot automatically be treated
as non-existent. The distinction is important in the present case. The petitioners
seek to proceed from the proposition that if any defect is found in the
authorisation of the inspection, the complaint must necessarily fall. That is too
broad proposition. Ravinder Kumar’s case (supra) certainly establishes the

CRM-M-5955-2022 (O&M) and one connected case -17-

illegality of an individual decision under Section 30 where the statutory
Appropriate Authority is multi-member. But Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg’s case
(supra) makes it equally clear that the consequence of such illegality has to be
examined in the factual context of the prosecution and the nature of the material
relied upon. Here, the complaint does not merely allege that a machine or some
isolated article was recovered during the inspection. It records specific
deficiencies in the statutory records maintained by the centre, including the
register, Form-Fs and referral slips, and allegations concerning signatures,
particulars of patients, referral details and the identity of the doctor conducting
the ultrasound examinations. The complaint thus raises questions concerning
the statutory maintenance of records which cannot be reduced to the legality of
the physical entry into the premises.
26. Further, the complaint itself states that the inspection team was
constituted by the District Appropriate Authority. The respondents have also
specifically pleaded that the matter was subsequently considered by the
statutory Authority and that a decision was taken to institute the complaint.
Therefore, unlike a case where the entire prosecution is demonstrably founded
upon a search authorised solely by an individual officer and there is no other
material whatsoever, the present case cannot, at this stage, be placed in that
category.
27. The petitioners have also relied upon non-joining of independent
witnesses. Rule 12 of the PC&PNDT Rules contemplates the presence of
independent witnesses during search and seizure. The respondents, however,
have specifically stated that persons from the locality had gathered near the
premises and were requested to join the proceedings, but they expressed their

CRM-M-5955-2022 (O&M) and one connected case -18-

inability or reluctance to do so. This explanation cannot be rejected in
proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. merely because the petitioners dispute
it. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Appabhai’s case (supra) has recognised that
non-availability or non-production of independent witnesses does not, by itself,
provide a reason to discard the prosecution version. The practical reluctance of
members of the public to associate themselves with criminal proceedings was
also recognized. The weight to be attached to the absence of independent
witnesses is ultimately a matter of appreciation of evidence. Consequently,
even assuming that the absence of independent witnesses is a circumstance
which the petitioners may rely upon at trial, it does not, by itself, demolish the
complaint. The question whether the statutory procedure was substantially
complied with, whether the officials correctly recorded the proceedings and
whether the material allegedly recovered was actually recovered in the manner
stated are matters for evidence.
28. The more substantive aspect of the matter relates to the alleged
deficiencies in the statutory records. Section 29(1) requires all records, charts,
forms, reports, consent letters and other documents required to be maintained
under the Act and Rules to be preserved for the prescribed period. Section 29(2)
requires such records to be made available for inspection to the Appropriate
Authority or an authorised person. Section 4(3), read with its proviso, is also
significant. The statutory scheme requires a person conducting ultrasonography
on a pregnant woman to maintain a complete record in the prescribed manner
and provides that any deficiency or inaccuracy in such record amounts to a
contravention of Sections 5 or 6 unless the contrary is proved by the person
conducting the ultrasonography. This provision explains why the prescribed

CRM-M-5955-2022 (O&M) and one connected case -19-

forms under the Rules are not treated as mere administrative paperwork. Rule 9
requires maintenance and preservation of records. In particular, Rule 9(1)
requires the prescribed register to contain the names and addresses of persons
subjected to prenatal diagnostic procedures/tests, names of their spouses or
fathers and the date of their first reporting. Rule 9(4) requires the record
relating to each person subjected to such procedure/test to be maintained in
Form-F. Rule 9(6) requires preservation of the relevant records for the
prescribed period. Rule 10 also prescribes conditions for conducting prenatal
diagnostic procedures and requires the declarations contemplated by the Rules.
29. The importance of aforementioned provisions has been
authoritatively explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Federation of
Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies of India’s case (supra) . The Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that the complete contents of Form-F are mandatory and
that non-maintenance of records cannot simply be brushed aside as a clerical
error. It recognised that the prescribed records constitute an important safeguard
against misuse of diagnostic techniques. The significance of aforesaid judgment
becomes even greater in the present case because the complaint does not allege
one isolated omission. It refers to several Form-F/referral slips allegedly
incomplete or unsigned, deficiencies in the register, absence of particulars and
discrepancies concerning the doctor who conducted the ultrasound and the
doctor whose signatures appeared on the reports. The respondents have also
placed specific examples of such records on the file.
30. At this stage, this Court is not required to determine whether every
alleged deficiency is ultimately proved. Nor is this Court required to decide
whether a particular omission was deliberate, inadvertent or clerical. Those are

CRM-M-5955-2022 (O&M) and one connected case -20-

questions which necessarily depend upon evidence. What is material for the
present purpose is that the complaint contains specific allegations which, if
proved, may attract the statutory provisions invoked against the petitioners. The
argument that the earlier inspection dated 11.12.2013 allegedly found the centre
to be functioning properly also cannot lead to quashing of the present
complaint. A previous inspection cannot confer immunity against subsequent
violations. Compliance on one date does not logically exclude violation on a
later date. Whether the circumstances noticed on 20.01.2014 were genuine or
whether they were correctly recorded is a matter for trial.
31. Now let us come to the individual plea of petitioner Dr. Vinit
Gupta. His principal submission is that he had resigned from the centre on
31.10.2013, whereas the inspection was conducted on 20.01.2014, and therefore
he could not be responsible for the alleged violations. This submission, though
appears attractive at first sight, cannot be accepted at this stage. The
respondents have specifically placed reliance upon ultrasound reports dated
21.11.2013 and other reports which, according to them, record Dr. Vinit Gupta
as the doctor who conducted the ultrasound, although the reports bear the
signatures of Dr. M.C. Mishra. The respondents have specifically pleaded that
these documents relate to a period subsequent to 31.10.2013. Therefore, the
resignation dated 31.10.2013 does not, by itself, answer the allegation. The
question is not merely when the petitioner claims to have resigned. The relevant
question is whether, notwithstanding the alleged resignation, he had in fact
conducted or rendered professional services in relation to the ultrasound
examinations relied upon by the prosecution. That is a question of fact. There is
another reason why this plea cannot be accepted at the present stage. Section 23

CRM-M-5955-2022 (O&M) and one connected case -21-

expressly extends its operation to a registered medical practitioner or a person
employed in or rendering professional or technical services at a Genetic Clinic.
Thus, liability under the Act is not confined to the owner of the centre. If the
prosecution material ultimately establishes that Dr. Vinit Gupta himself
conducted particular ultrasound examinations and that the statutory
requirements were not complied with, his alleged resignation from the
establishment on a particular date would not, by itself, furnish an answer to
those specific acts. At the same time, this Court is conscious that a mere
reference to the petitioner’s name in a document cannot substitute proof at trial.
Thus, this Court is not holding, at this stage, that Dr. Vinit Gupta in fact
conducted the ultrasound examinations after 31.10.2013. The limited finding is
that the material relied upon by the respondents raises a factual issue which
cannot be conclusively decided in favour of the petitioner in exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
32. The petitioners have also relied upon Davinder Pal Singh
Bhullar’s case (supra) . The said judgment does not advance their case to the
extent urged. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. undoubtedly exists to
prevent abuse of the process of law. But it is not a jurisdiction for weighing
competing versions of facts or conducting a mini-trial. The question in the
present case is whether, taking the allegations and material relied upon by the
complainant at their face value, the prosecution is wholly groundless. In my
considered view, it is not. The PC&PNDT Act is a social welfare legislation
enacted with the specific object of preventing sex selection and misuse of pre-
natal diagnostic techniques and, ultimately, of preventing female foeticide. The
provisions relating to maintenance of records, completion of Form-F,

CRM-M-5955-2022 (O&M) and one connected case -22-

inspection, search and seizure and institution of prosecution constitute an
integrated statutory mechanism intended to ensure accountability in the use of
such techniques. At the same time, the seriousness of the object of the
legislation cannot dispense with the requirement of a prima facie case. The
Court is required to examine whether the allegations, taken at their face value,
disclose an offence and whether continuation of the proceedings would amount
to an abuse of the process of law.
33. In the present case, there is nothing on record at this stage to
demonstrate that the allegations made in the complaint are so absurd or
inherently improbable that no prudent person could ever reach a conclusion that
an offence under the Act may have been committed. The complaint contains
specific allegations regarding statutory records, Form-Fs, referral slips and
ultrasound reports. The allegations, therefore, cannot be characterised as vague,
fanciful or inherently improbable. Whether those allegations are ultimately
proved is an entirely different matter and must be left to the trial Court.
34. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C., this Court should not ordinarily undertake an assessment of the
reliability or probative value of the prosecution material or weigh the defence
as though conducting a trial. The respondents have rightly relied upon these
principles. The present case does not fall within a category where the
allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, fail to disclose any offence. Nor is
this a case where the defence documents of unimpeachable character
completely demolish the prosecution version. On the contrary, the complaint
contains specific allegations regarding maintenance of statutory records and
Form-Fs and the respondents have placed material in support thereof. It is also

CRM-M-5955-2022 (O&M) and one connected case -23-

necessary to keep in view that the PC&PNDT Act creates a carefully structured
statutory mechanism. The Appropriate Authority is entrusted with enforcement;
the Advisory Committee assists and advises it; Section 28 regulates cognizance;
Section 29 ensures preservation of records; Section 30 regulates search and
seizure; and Section 23 provides the penal consequence. These provisions are
intended to operate together. The Court should neither dilute the statutory
safeguards available to the regulated establishments nor interpret procedural
provisions in a manner which disables the statutory Authority from enforcing
the legislation.
35. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the
considered opinion that no case has been made out for quashing the impugned
complaint or subsequent proceedings having arisen therefrom. Consequently,
both petitions are found to be without merit and are dismissed. The trial Court
shall proceed with the complaint in accordance with law and without being
influenced by any observation made herein.
36. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
37. Let a photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected
case.



15.09.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari
JUDGE


Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No