Sanjay Sinha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:38029
1 MCRC-39555-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
st
ON THE 21 OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39555 of 2022
SANJAY SINHA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Agrawal - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Harshit Bari
and Shri Dhruv Sethi - Advocates for the petitioner.
Smt. Aarti Sharma - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been instituted under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court
for quashment of the FIR bearing Crime No.311/2022 registered at Police
Station Kotwali, District Betul, the consequential charge-sheet dated
20.05.2022 filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Betul, and all
subsequent proceedings arising from RCT No.569/2022 including the order
framing charge against the petitioners under Section 3B of the Pre-
Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex
Selection) Act, 1994 (herein after PCPNDT Act).
2. The facts reveal that the petitioners at the relevant point of time were
employees of BPL Medical Technologies Pvt. Ltd., a company engaged in
manufacture, distribution and supply of medical diagnostic equipment
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 5/12/2026
6:01:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:38029
2 MCRC-39555-2022
including ultrasound and sonography machines. Petitioner No.1 namely

Sanjay Sinha was functioning as Regional Manager at the Bhopal branch of
the company whereas petitioner No.2 namely Vikas Pandey was functioning
as a salesman attached to the said branch.
3. On 29.07.2021, a purchase order bearing reference No.VP/21-22/CD/22
was placed by Karuna Hospital, Betul for purchase of an ultrasound machine
namely “BPL Alpinion Ecube8LE” . Along with the purchase order, Karuna
Hospital furnished certain documents to the petitioners including an old
certificate of registration issued under Section 19(1) of the PCPNDT Act and
documents relating to renewal application allegedly submitted before the
competent authority.
4. The record reveals that the registration certificate furnished by Karuna
Hospital was Registration No.16 issued under Section 19(1) of the PCPNDT
Act and was valid from 10.05.2012 till 09.05.2017. The said certificate
specifically authorized use of “Logiq 100 Ultrasound Machine with 3.5
MHZ convex probe.” The Renewed Certificate of Registration dated
11/10/2021 bearing Registration number - MP/PCPNDT/BZU/2021/14
authorized Karuna Hospital to carry out ‘Genetic Counselling Pre Natal
Diagnostic Procedures/ Pre-Natal Diagnostic Tests/ Ultrasonography’ under
the PCPCNDT Act using an ultrasound machine namely, “SONOTECH ST9
040005”. The Renewed Certificate of Registration stated that it was valid
from 10.05.2012 to 10.05.2017. The prosecution case is that despite the
absence of any valid authorization permitting installation or use of the newly
supplied machine namely “BPL Alpinion Ecube8LE”, the petitioners
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 5/12/2026
6:01:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:38029
3 MCRC-39555-2022
proceeded with the transaction and facilitated supply of the machine to

Karuna Hospital. The prosecution further alleges that the petitioners, despite
being fully aware of the statutory framework governing supply of ultrasound
machines under the PCPNDT Act, failed to verify whether the machine
sought to be supplied was covered by a valid and subsisting registration
certificate issued by the Appropriate Authority. It is the further allegation of
the prosecution that the petitioners knowingly facilitated supply of the
machine on the basis of an expired certificate relating to a different machine
and thereby violated the mandatory provisions of Section 3B of the
PCPNDT Act.
5. Subsequently, information was received by the authorities regarding
illegal prenatal diagnostic activities and offences connected with sex
determination allegedly being carried out at Karuna Hospital, Betul, by using
second ultra-sound machine without permission/registration, inspite of that,
one ultra-sound machine was already available to the hospital, and the
second machine was used for the illegal sex determination by the hospital.
On the basis of the said information, FIR bearing Crime No.311/2022 came
to be registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Betul under Section 420
IPC, Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and
Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act.
6. During investigation, the Investigating Agency collected documentary
evidence including the purchase order, registration certificates, renewal
application documents, communications exchanged between the petitioners
and the authorities, installation-related documents and other material
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 5/12/2026
6:01:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:38029
4 MCRC-39555-2022
connected with supply of the machine. Statements of witnesses were also

recorded. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet dated 20.05.2022
came to be filed against the petitioners and other accused persons before the
competent criminal court and charged under Section 3B of the PCPNDT Act
have been framed accordingly against the petitioners and the matter is
pending for recording of evidence before the Trial court. Aggrieved by
initiation and continuation of the criminal proceedings, the petitioners have
approached this Court by way of the present petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has advanced
elaborate submissions contending that the entire criminal prosecution
initiated against the petitioners is wholly misconceived, contrary to the
material available on record and amounts to gross abuse of process of law.
According to the petitioners, the allegations made in the FIR and charge-
sheet, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose commission of any
offence under Section 3B of the PCPNDT Act.
8. The foremost submission advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioners is that Karuna Hospital was not an unregistered clinic and
therefore the foundational ingredient necessary to attract Section 3B of the
PCPNDT Act is completely absent. Learned counsel submits that at the time
of placing the purchase order dated 29.07.2021, the hospital had furnished an
existing certificate of registration issued under Section 19(1) of the Act as
well as documents showing pendency of renewal proceedings before the
competent authority. It is urged that the discrepancy in the validity period
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 5/12/2026
6:01:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:38029
5 MCRC-39555-2022
mentioned in the renewed certificate was an error as this period pertained to

the earlier Certificate of Registration. According to the petitioners, once a
registration certificate existed and renewal proceedings were pending, the
petitioners were legally justified in proceeding with the transaction.
9. Learned counsel has further argued that Rule 8(6) of the PCPNDT
Rules creates a statutory deeming fiction whereby if an application for
renewal of registration is not decided within ninety days, the registration
shall be deemed to have been renewed by operation of law. It has been
contended that Karuna Hospital had submitted a renewal application dated
24.12.2019 and had deposited the requisite renewal fees on 28.01.2020. In
support of the said contention, reliance has been placed upon the
communication dated 30.04.2022 issued by BPL Medical Technologies to
the CMHO, Betul wherein the aforesaid facts were specifically mentioned. It
has therefore been argued that the registration of Karuna Hospital stood
deemed renewed and consequently the petitioners cannot be prosecuted
under Section 3B of the PCPNDT Act.
10. Another substantial submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners is
that the ultrasound machine was not installed immediately upon sale.
Installation was undertaken only after Karuna Hospital furnished a fresh
registration certificate dated 11.10.2021 issued under the PCPNDT Act. It
has therefore been argued that the petitioners acted with utmost caution and
bona fides and consciously refrained from installation until a fresh certificate
was produced before them. The petitioners have thus sought to demonstrate
absence of any criminal intent or deliberate statutory violation on their part.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 5/12/2026
6:01:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:38029
6 MCRC-39555-2022
11. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioners complied with

all statutory obligations cast upon suppliers under Rule 3A of the PCPNDT
Rules by intimating the competent authorities regarding supply of the
machine. It has been argued that the transaction was carried out transparently
and openly and there was neither concealment nor any dishonest conduct
attributable to the petitioners.
12. The petitioners have further contended that they had no role whatsoever
in the internal functioning or alleged illegal activities of Karuna Hospital.
According to learned counsel, the petitioners neither operated the machine
nor conducted any prenatal diagnostic procedure nor participated in any
alleged sex determination activity. It has therefore been argued that criminal
liability cannot be extended to suppliers merely because they sold a machine
in the ordinary course of business.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed strong reliance upon
the judgments in “R. Jairam Iyer Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, in the High Court
of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur, Criminal Misc. Petition No.765 of 2010”,
“Manish Emanwal Vs. State of M.P., in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
(Gwalior Bench), M.Cr.C. No. 2060/2017, “Sabir Hussain and Others Vs.
State of M.P., Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.9879 of 2015” and “Satish
Mehra Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 13 SCC 614” and has contended
that where basic ingredients of an offence are absent or where continuation
of prosecution would amount to abuse of process, the High Court is duty-
bound to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the
proceedings.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 5/12/2026
6:01:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:38029
7 MCRC-39555-2022
14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently

opposed the petition and submitted that the prosecution material clearly
discloses prima facie commission of offence under Section 3B of the
PCPNDT Act and therefore no interference is warranted in exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
15. Learned counsel for the State has contended that the entire foundation
of the petitioners’ case is legally unsustainable because the registration
certificate relied upon by them had admittedly expired on 09.05.2017 and
moreover pertained to an entirely different machine, in relation to that, no
registration was available to the hospital. According to the State, the
certificate specifically authorized use of “SONOTECH ST9 040005”
whereas the machine supplied by the petitioners was “BPL Alpinion
Ecube8LE” for which no Certificate of registration was available with
Karana hospital.
16. The State has further contended that the PCPNDT Act and Rules
contemplate equipment-specific registration and not a blanket or generic
authorization in favour of the institution. Reliance has been placed upon
Form A, Form B and Rule 13 of the PCPNDT Rules to contend that every
change in equipment requires disclosure before the Appropriate Authority
and corresponding modification or reissuance of the registration certificate.
Learned counsel for the State has further argued that the plea regarding
deemed renewal itself raises disputed questions of fact which cannot be
conclusively adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It has also
been contended that even assuming deemed renewal of the earlier certificate;
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 5/12/2026
6:01:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:38029
8 MCRC-39555-2022
the same could not automatically authorize installation of a completely new

machine of a different make and model without approval of the Appropriate
Authority.
17. The State has further argued that the petitioners were not ordinary
laypersons unfamiliar with the statutory framework. Rather, they were
experienced suppliers and distributors of ultrasound machines and were fully
aware of the regulatory requirements governing supply of such machines.
Therefore, according to the State, the petitioners cannot avoid liability by
merely pleading bona fide belief or absence of mens rea.
18. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perusal of the
entire record.
19. At the very outset, it is necessary to appreciate the legislative object
underlying the PCPNDT Act. The Act was enacted as a social welfare
legislation intended to prevent misuse of prenatal diagnostic techniques for
sex selection and female foeticide. The alarming decline in child sex ratio
and the widespread misuse of diagnostic technology compelled the
legislature to enact stringent regulatory provisions governing not merely
medical practitioners and clinics but also manufacturers, suppliers and
distributors of ultrasound machines. Section 3B forms an integral part of the
preventive mechanism contemplated by the legislation.
20. The principal submission advanced by the petitioners is that Karuna
Hospital was a registered entity and therefore Section 3B of the PCPNDT
Act is not attracted. This Court is unable to accept the said submission for
more than one reason.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 5/12/2026
6:01:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:38029
9 MCRC-39555-2022
21. The material placed on record correctly demonstrate that registration

under the PCPNDT Act is not generic or institution-centric in the broad
manner suggested by the petitioners. The statutory scheme clearly reveals
that registration is equipment-specific and conditional in nature. “Form A”
prescribed under the PCPNDT Rules of 1994 which is a Form of Application
for registration or renewal of registration of a Genetic Counselling Centre /
Genetic Counselling Centre / Genetic Laboratory / Genetic Clinic / Imaging
Centre specifically requires disclosure of the type, make and model of the
equipment proposed to be used. “Form B” that is the Certificate of
Registration issued by the Appropriate Authority correspondingly reflects the
particulars of the equipment authorized for use. Rule 13 further mandates
that any change in equipment must be intimated to the Appropriate Authority
and approval or reissuance of registration certificate must be obtained.
Relevant portion of Form A and Form B is reproduced below -
“FORM A
[See rules 4(1) and 8(1)]
(To be submitted in Duplicate with supporting documents as enclosures)
FORM OF APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OR
RENEWAL OF REGISTRATION OF A GENETIC
COUNSELLING CENTRE/GENETIC
LABORATORY/GENETIC CLINIC/ULTRASOUND
CLINIC/IMAGING CENTRE
1. Name of the applicant (Indicate name of the organization sought to be
registered)
2. Address of the applicant
3. Type of facility to be registered (Please specify
whether the application is for registration of a
Genetic Counselling Centre/ Genetic Laboratory/
Genetic Clinic /Ultrasound Clinic /Imaging Centre
or any combination of these)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 5/12/2026
6:01:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:38029
10 MCRC-39555-2022
4. Full name and address/addresses of Genetic
Counselling Centre/ Genetic Laboratory/ Genetic
Clinic/ Ultrasound Clinic/ Imaging Centre with
Telephone/ Fax number(s)/Telegraphic/Telex/ e-
mail address(es).

5. Type of ownership of Organisation
(individual/ownership/partnership/company/ co-
operative/any other to be specified). In case type of
organization is other than individual ownership,
furnish copy of articles of association and names
and addresses of other persons responsible for
management, as enclosure.
6. Type of Institution (Govt. Hospital/ Municipal
Hospital/ Public Hospital/ Private Hospital/ Private
Nursing Home/ Private Clinic/ Private Laboratory/
any other to be stated.)
7. Specific pre-natal diagnostic procedures/tests for
which approval is sought
(a) Invasive
(i) amniocentesis/chorionic villi
aspiration/chromosomal/biochemical/ molecular
studies
(b) Non-Invasive Ultrasonography Leave blank if
registration is sought for Genetic Counselling
Centre only.
8. Equipment available with the make and model of
each equipment. (List to be attached on a separate
sheet).
…........................

FORM B

[See Rules 6(2), 6(5) and 8(2)]
CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION
(To be issued in duplicate)
1. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 19
(1) of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation
and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 (57 of 1994), the
Appropriate Authority ………………….. hereby grants
registration to the Genetic Counselling Centre*/Genetic
Laboratory/Genetic Clinic/Ultrasound Clinic*/
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 5/12/2026
6:01:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:38029
11 MCRC-39555-2022
Imaging Centre* named below for purposes of carrying
out Genetic Counselling/Pre-natal Diagnostic
Procedures*/Pre-Natal Diagnostic Tests/ultrasonography
under the aforesaid Act for a period of five years ending
on …………….

2. This registration is granted subject to the aforesaid Act
and Rules thereunder and any contravention thereof shall
result in suspension or cancellation of this Certificate of
Registration before the expiry of the said period of five
years apart from prosecution.
A. Name and address of the Genetic Counselling
Centre/Genetic Laboratory/Genetic Clinic*/
Ultrasound Clinic/Imaging Centre.
B. Pre-natal diagnostic procedures* approved for
(Genetic Clinic). Non-Invasive (i) Ultrasound Invasive
(ii) Amniocentesis (iii) Chorionic villi biopsy (iv)
Foetoscopy (v) Foetal skin or organ biopsy (vi)
Cordocentesis (vii) Any other (specify)
C. Pre-natal diagnostic tests* approved (for Genetic
Laboratory) (i) Chromosomal studies (ii) Biochemical
studies (iii) Molecular studies
D. Any other purpose (please specify for ultrasound
clinic/imaging centre)
3. Model and make of equipment being used (any change
is to be intimated to the Appropriate Authority under rule
13).
4. Registration No. allotted
5. Period of validity of earlier Certificate Of Registration.
(For renewed Certificate of Registration only)
…....................”
22. A conjoint reading of the PCPNDT act and PCPNDT rules, 1996
demonstrates that registration is granted on the basis of specific particulars of
equipment disclosed by the applicant. Form A, which is the prescribed
application for registration, requires the applicant to furnish details of the
equipment available, including the make and model of each machine. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 5/12/2026
6:01:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:38029
12 MCRC-39555-2022
requirement is not generic but contemplates a specific enumeration of

equipment proposed to be installed and used. Correspondingly, Form B,
being the certificate of registration, reflects the particulars of the equipment
for which the clinic is authorized. Significantly, Form B itself stipulates that
any change in the equipment must be intimated to the Appropriate Authority
under Rule 13. Rule 13, in clear terms, mandates that every clinic shall
intimate any change in equipment and obtain re-issuance or modification of
the registration certificate. The said provision leaves no manner of doubt that
the registration is confined to the equipment so specified and does not
automatically extend to additional machines.
23. In the present case, the renewed certificate relied upon by the
petitioners admittedly pertained only to “SONOTECH ST9 040005”. The
machine supplied by the petitioners, however, was “BPL Alpinion
Ecube8LE”, which was an entirely different machine, and for that
registration is not issued by any authority. Consequently, even assuming that
the earlier certificate or renewal application existed, the same did not
authorize installation or use of the newly supplied machine. For this very
same reason the contention advanced by the petitioners that installation was
undertaken only after issuance of a fresh registration certificate dated
11.10.2021 is untenable.
24. The plea regarding deemed renewal under Rule 8(6) also fails to
impress this Court. Firstly, whether renewal application had actually been
filed in accordance with law, whether it remained pending and whether the
conditions necessary for operation of the deeming fiction stood satisfied are
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 5/12/2026
6:01:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:38029
13 MCRC-39555-2022
all disputed questions of fact requiring evidence. Such disputed factual issues

cannot be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
25. Secondly, and more importantly, even assuming deemed renewal of the
earlier certificate, such renewal could at best relate to the machine already
available to the hospital authorized under the earlier registration certificate.
The deeming fiction cannot be stretched beyond its legitimate statutory
purpose so as to automatically authorize installation of an altogether new
machine of a different make and model without approval of the Appropriate
Authority. Acceptance of such an interpretation would completely defeat the
regulatory framework of the PCPNDT Act and render Rule 13 wholly
meaningless.
26. The argument that the petitioners merely acted in the ordinary course of
business also cannot be accepted. The petitioners were admittedly
experienced functionaries engaged in supply and distribution of ultrasound
machines governed by a highly regulated statutory framework. They cannot
claim ignorance regarding the legal requirements governing supply and
installation of such machines, because the act puts heavy duty on the
suppliers also to follow the strict provision of the PCPNDT Act. Once the
statute imposes a prohibition upon sale or supply except in accordance with
valid registration, corresponding obligations necessarily arise upon suppliers
to ensure strict compliance with the statutory requirements. If the analogy is
accepted of the petitioner, then in that case a supplier could provide/sell
multiple ultrasound machines to a single hospital with one registration which
would completely defeat the very object of this act.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 5/12/2026
6:01:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:38029
14 MCRC-39555-2022
27. Section 3B creates an independent statutory offence relating to unlawful

sale or supply of ultrasound machines. The prosecution at this stage is not
required to establish that the petitioners themselves conducted sex
determination procedures. The gravamen of the allegation against the
petitioners is unlawful supply of the machine in contravention of the
statutory framework.
28. In R. Jairam Iyer (supra) the High Court was dealing with allegations of
medical negligence under Sections 304-A, 201 and 468 IPC arising out of
treatment administered by a cardiologist. Upon examination of the charge-
sheet material, the Court found absence of evidence establishing negligence
attributable to the doctor under Section 304-A IPC and therefore quashed
prosecution to that extent. However, the Court declined to quash proceedings
under Section 468 IPC observing that disputed questions relating to
falsification of documents required trial. The ratio of the said judgment is
therefore entirely distinguishable. The present case does not concern medical
negligence but concerns violation of a special social welfare legislation
imposing statutory obligations upon suppliers of ultrasound machines.
29. Similarly, in Manish Emanwal (supra) the issue before the Court was
whether the owner of a school bus could be prosecuted under Section 304
Part-II IPC in the absence of material establishing knowledge or intention
necessary to constitute the offence. The Court found absence of the essential
ingredients necessary to attract Section 304 Part-II IPC. The present case
stands on an entirely different footing because Section 3B of the PCPNDT
Act creates a specific statutory prohibition and the material collected during
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 5/12/2026
6:01:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:38029
15 MCRC-39555-2022
investigation prima facie indicates violation of the said prohibition. The

question here is not one of inferred intention under the Penal Code but
compliance with a regulatory statutory mandate.
30. Likewise, Sabir Hussain and Others (supra) involved allegations under
Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and the Court reiterated settled principles
governing exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However,
the said judgment itself recognizes that where disputed factual issues arise
and the material discloses prima facie commission of offence, the High Court
ought not to interfere at the threshold. Therefore, the ratio of the said
judgment does not advance the case of the petitioners.
31. The reliance placed upon Satish Mehra (supra) is also misplaced. In the
said judgment, the Supreme Court observed that where the materials placed
before the Court completely rule out the possibility of conviction and
continuation of prosecution would be meaningless, the Court may exercise
jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process.
32. The inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are extraordinary in
nature and are required to be exercised sparingly, cautiously and only in
cases where failure to interfere would result in manifest injustice or abuse of
process. At the stage of considering quashment, the Court is not expected to
meticulously appreciate evidence or adjudicate disputed factual controversies
as though conducting a mini trial.
33. In the considered opinion of this Court, the material collected during
investigation clearly discloses prima facie commission of offence under
Section 3B of the PCPNDT Act against the petitioners. The learned Trial
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 5/12/2026
6:01:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:38029
16 MCRC-39555-2022
Court has already considered the material available on record and framed

charge against the petitioners. This Court does not find any perversity,
illegality or abuse of process warranting interference in exercise of inherent
jurisdiction.
34. Accordingly, for all the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of
the considered opinion that each of the grounds urged by the petitioners
lacks merit and deserves rejection. The plea regarding existence of
registration certificate is rejected in view of the fact that the certificate relied
upon was expired and pertained to a different machine which was already
available to the hospital. The plea regarding deemed renewal is rejected since
the same raises disputed questions of fact and in any case deemed renewal
cannot automatically authorize installation of an altogether different machine
without approval of the Appropriate Authority. The plea regarding bona fide
conduct and absence of mens rea is rejected in light of the statutory
obligations cast upon suppliers under the PCPNDT Act. The plea regarding
absence of direct involvement in sex determination activities is also rejected
since Section 3B creates an independent statutory offence relating to
unlawful supply of ultrasound machines.
35. Consequently, no case for quashment of FIR as well as charge-sheet or
consequential criminal proceedings is made out.
36. Accordingly, this petition under Section 482 of CrPC, 1973 (Section
528 of BNSS, 2023), being devoid of merit, is dismissed. However, learned
Trial Court is expected to expedite the pace of trial and to conclude it as
early as possible.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 5/12/2026
6:01:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:38029
17 MCRC-39555-2022
37. It is clarified that observations made herein are confined solely to

adjudication of the present petition under Section 482 CrPC, 1973 and shall
not prejudice the Trial Court while deciding the matter on merits in
accordance with law.
38. Let a copy of this order be transmitted forthwith to the concerned Trial
Court for information.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
^@shish^

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 5/12/2026
6:01:31 PM