SARDAMMA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

1
R
Reserved on : 06.02.2026
Pronounced on : 21.02.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ST
DATED THIS THE 21 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.884 OF 2026

C/W

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14326 OF 2025

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.884 OF 2026

BETWEEN:

1 . SARDAMMA
W/O DASEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
BYRAPATTANA, CHANNAPATTANA TALUK,
MALUR, CHANNAPATNA
RAMANAGARA – 562 160.

2 . DASEGOWDA
S/O NARAYANAGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
BYRAPATTANA,
CHANNAPATTANA TALUK,
MALUR, CHANNAPATNA
RAMANAGARA – 562 160.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI HEMANTH KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)

2
AND:

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
BYATARAYANAPURA POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BENGALURU – 560 001.

2 . DR. RAVINDRANATH M. METI
DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER
DISTRICT COMPETENT AUTHORITY,
P.C AND PNDT ACT,
BENGALURU.
... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF
B.N.S.S., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
IN CRIME NO.286/2025 REGISTERED BY THE BYATARAYANAPURA
POLICE, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE MEDICAL TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY ACT 1971 AND
UNDER SECTION 91 R/W 3(5) THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA,
2023 BEFORE THE XLVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
AT BENGALURU.

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.14326 OF 2025


BETWEEN:

DR. SHASHI S.L.,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

3
RADIOLOGIST, DISTRICT HOSPITAL,
RAMANAGARA,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
PIN 562 159.

RESIDING AT NO. KT 80,
TH
6 CROSS, MARIGOWDA LAYOUT,
MANDYA – 571 401.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHRIDHARA K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DISTRICT APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY
RAMANAGARA
CONSTITUTED UNDER THE P.C- P.N.D.T. ACT,
REPRESENTED BY
DR.NIRANJAN B.S.,
DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICE,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
PIN 562 159,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AMBEDKAR BEEDI,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP)


THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF
BNSS, 2023, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.2519/2025 (P.C.R.NO.401/2024) PENDING BEFORE THE
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT RAMANAGARA, FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 23 OF PRE-CONCEPTION AND PRE-NATAL

4
DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES (PROHIBITION OF SEX SELECTION)
ACT, 1994 AGAINST THE PETITIONER.


THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 06.02.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

Both these petitions are filed by different accused in different
proceedings, but arising out of the same substratum of facts. They
are therefore, taken up together and considered in this common
order.

2. Heard Sri Hemanth Kumar K, learned counsel appearing for
petitioners in Criminal Petition No.884 of 2026; Sri Shridhara K,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Criminal Petition
No.14326 of 2025 and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional
State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents in both the
petitions.

5
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.884 OF 2026:
The petitioners - accused Nos.4 and 5 in crime No.286/2025
are before this Court calling in question the very registration of the
crime for the offences punishable under Section 4 of the Medical
Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (‘the Act’ for short) and
Sections 3(5) and 91 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for
short ‘the BNS’).

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.14326 OF 2025:

The petitioner is accused No.1 in C.C.No.2519 of 2025 arising
out of PCR No.401 of 2024, registered for offence punishable under
Section 23 of the Pre-conception and Pre Natal Diagnostic
Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (‘PCPNDT Act’
for short). Therefore, on the same set of facts offences have
sprung under two different enactments as noted hereinabove.

THE SUBSTRATUM :

4. On 22-08-2025 one Smt. Harsitha, wife of accused No.1
who was carrying for the third child, already having two female

6
children, intends to get herself scanned to know the sex of the
fetus. Both Smt. Harsitha and accused No.1 are said to have
enquired with their relative Smt. Lakshmi/accused No.2 who in turn
called her acquaintance one Smt. Bhagyamma/accused No.3 who is
said to have advised them to come to a hospital in Ramanagara at
st
2.00 p.m. The 1 petitioner/accused No.4 is said to have called
accused No.2 over phone and instructed her to write her name by
her hand where the scanning of the victim was said to have been
fixed to be done and the Doctor had informed that fetus is very
healthy. Thereafter, accused No.3 called accused No.2 again to
meet petitioner No.2/accused No.5 who then revealed the
information to Smt. Harsitha that the sex of the fetus indicating it
to be a female. On coming to know that it was a female for the
third time, the couple Smt. Harsitha and accused No.1 are said to
have decided that fetus be aborted.

4.1. Accused No.2 is said to have advised the accused No.1 to
visit Dr. Pallavi at Dhanish Polyclinic/accused No.6, at which point in
time, it appears that the Health Officer gets a tip off. After
encountering suspicion, accused No.1 takes the victim back home.

7
By then the other accused had fed certain tablets or medication for
abortion of the fetus. On the night of the very day Smt. Harsitha,
the pregnant develops profused bleeding. Therefore, the patient
was taken to the hospital and the Doctor there declares that the
fetus had died and referred the matter to Vanivilas Hospital,
Bangalore. It is in this manner a complaint comes to be registered
by the District Health and Family Welfare Officer against all these
accused. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.286 of 2025
for the afore-quoted offences. The registration of the crime is what
has driven accused Nos. 4 and 5 to this Court seeking quashment of
proceedings against them.

5. The companion petition – Criminal Petition No.14326 of
2025 is preferred by the radiologist – accused No.1, in
C.C.No.2519/2025, who conducted the scan test. The petitioner, in
this companion petition. contends that he has not divulged the sex
of fetus, but only conduced the scan, which is permissible and the
fetus died not in Ramanagara but in Bangalore. The other legal
contentions that are advanced are that, the concerned Court has

8
taken cognizance of the offence in blatant violation of Section 23 of
the PCPNDT Act and seeks quashment on the said ground as well.

SUBMISSIONS:

PETITIONERS’:


6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Criminal
Petition No.14326 of 2025 would vehemently contend that the
radiologist is innocent. He has only conducted a scan which is not
prohibited under the Act. There is no evidence to link the petitioner
to the alleged offence. The allegations are based on hearsay,
without there being any corroborative material. The Competent
Authority or the investigating team did not adhere to the
mandatory provisions under the PCPNDT Act, including conduct of
prior investigation and issuing notices to the accused prior to
registration of crime. The learned counsel would further project
that the order of taking cognizance and issuing summons is a
serious matter and the order of cognizance does not indicate
application of mind or existence of a prima facie case to issue
summons to the petitioner, in particular.

9
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners in the companion
petition – Criminal Petition No.884 of 2026 would toe the lines of
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the companion
petition insofar as the order of taking cognizance is concerned and
would further submit that the petitioners/accused Nos. 4 and 5
have nothing to do with what has happened in the entire episode.
There is no evidence at all to link these petitioners to the alleged
act of crime. On these grounds, the respective learned counsel
would seek quashment of proceedings.

THE STATE:

8. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
Sri B.N. Jagadeesha would vehemently refute the submissions in
contending that what the petitioners have done are grave in nature.
It is a coterie that is operating in the Districts of Ramanagara and
Channapatna and sex determination leading to medical termination
of pregnancy is rampant in these areas. He would submit that the
issue needs trial, where the statement of the victim is taken as to
how the modus operandi in the entire issue has sprung. The learned
Additional State Public Prosecutor submits that the petitions

10
deserve to be dismissed and further trial be permitted to be
conducted. It is for the petitioners to come out clean post the trial.


9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.

CONSIDERATION:

10. The afore-narrated dates and the link in the chain of
events are all a matter of record. A crime comes to be registered
on 30-08-2025 by a public servant viz., the District Health and
Family Welfare Officer. The complaint reads as follows:

THE COMPLAINT:
,
“ರವ ೆ

ಆರ ಕ ಉಪ ೕಕರು

ಾಟಾಯನಪರ ೕ ಾೆ
.
ೆಂಗಳರು ನಗರ !ೆ"


ಇಂದ
||
%ಾ ರ&ೕಂದ'(ಾಥ ಎಂ +ೕ,
&
!ಾ" ಆ ೋಗ ಮತು0 ಕುಟುಂಬ ಕ!ಾ ಾ23ಾ
, ( . & . . . ),
!ಾ" ಸ ಮ 5ಾ'23ಾ  6 7 6 ಎ8 9 , 3ಾ:;
.
ೆಂಗಳರು ನಗರ !ೆ"

11
: 9449843037
< ೈ> ನಂ

,
?ಾನ ೇ

:
&ಷಯ 3ಾನೂನು ಾAರ ಭೂ'ಣ ಂಗ ಪDೆ0 ಮತು0 ಭೂ'ಣಹDೆ  ?ಾ9ರುವವರ

&ರುದ; ದೂರು
: , , , ,
ಉ!ೆ"ೕಖ G'ೕಮH ಹIJತ KೆನL3ೇಶವ ಲOPೕ Qಾಗ ಮR ಪಲ"& ಇವರ
.
SೇT3ೆಯಂDೆ
*
w/o ,
G'ೕಮH ಹIJತ KೆನL3ೇಶವ ಇವ ೆ ಎರಡು SೆಣುV ಮಕWTದು; ಮೂರ(ೇ ಮಗು& ೆ
,
ಗಭJವHXಾYದು; ಮೂರ(ೇ ಮಗು&ನ ಂಗ Xಾವ Zೆಂದು HTಯಲು ಧJ7 ಸಂಬಂ2ಕ ಾದ
.
G'ೕಮH ಲOPೕ ಇವರನುL ಸಂಪ\J7ರುDಾ0 ೆ ನಂತರ ಲOPಯವರು ಪ ಚಯದವಾದ G'ೕಮH
.
Qಾಗ ಮRರವರನುL ಸಂಪ\Jಸ!ಾY ಇವರು ಾಮನಗರದ" ಂಗ ಪDೆ0 ?ಾಡುDಾ0 ೆಂದು HT7ರುDಾ0 ೆ
:22.08.2025 7:30 , ,
ನಂತರ ^ ರಂದು ೆTೆ_ 3ೆW G'ೕಮH ಹIJತ KೆನL3ೇಶವ ಲOP ಇಬ`ರು

ಸಂಬಂ2ಕರ aೊDೆ ಾಮನಗರ !ಾ" ಆಸbDೆ' DೆರT Sೊರ ೋY cೕ, ?ಾ97 Qಾಗ ಮRೆ
. 9:00
3ಾಯುH0ರುDಾ0 ೆ Qಾಗ ಮRರವರು ಆIJXಾ ಎನುLವ ಮAdೆeಡ(ೆ ಬ7fನ " ಅ "ೆ ಗಂhೆ ೆ
.
ಬರುDಾ0 ೆ Qಾಗ ಮR ಸವJi ಇಲ"jೆಂದು HT7Zಾಗ ಎಲ"ರೂ Sೊರಟು ಬಂ^ರುDಾ0 ೆ ನಂತರ
2
ೆಂಗಳರು ಕ%ೆ ಬರುH0ರುDಾ0 ೆ ಒಂZೆರಡು ಗಂhೆ ನಂತರ ಸವJi ಇರುವ ZಾY ದೂರjಾl ಮೂಲಕ
.
ಗಂhೆeಳ ೆ ಬ L ಎಂದು Qಾಗ ಮRರವರು ಲOPೕರವ ೆ HT7ರುDಾ0 ೆ

,
ಅದರಂDೆ ಲOPೕರವರು ದಂಪHಗdೆ ಡ(ೆ 3ಾ ನ" ಾಮನಗರ ಆಸbDೆ' ೆ ಬರುDಾ0 ೆ

mಾರದಮRರವರು ದೂರjಾl ಮೂಲಕ ಲOPೕರವ ೆ ಕ ೆ ?ಾ9 ಹIJತರವರ 3ೈನ " mಾರದಮR
,
ಎಂದು ಬ ೆದು ಕಳnAಸಲು HT7ರುDಾ0 ೆ ಅದರಂDೆ ಲOPೕರವರು ಹIJತರವರ ಎಡ ಅಂ ೈ +ೕ!ೆ
We ,
mಾರದಮR Sೆಸರು ಬ ೆದು oಾWp ಂqೆ jೈದ ರ ಕಳnA7ರುDಾ0 ೆ ನಂತರ jೈದ ರು oಾWp ಂq

ನ%ೆ7 ಲOPೕರವ ೆ ಮR ಮಗು ಆ ೋಗjಾYರುತ0Zೆಂದು HT7ರುDಾ0 ೆ ನಂತರ ಅ "ಂದ Sೊರ
.
ಬಂ^ರುDಾ0 ೆ Qಾಗ ರವರು ಲOPೕರವ ೆ ಕ ೆ?ಾ9 ಚನLಪಟrಣ ಬ  !ಾ;ಣದ ಬT mಾರದಮRರವರ
.
ಪH Zಾoೆ ೌಡರವರನುL Qೇ, ?ಾಡಲು HT7ರುDಾ0 ೆ ಹIJತರವರ ಪH KೆನL3ೇಶವ ಲOPೕರವ ೆ
25000/- . 25000/-
ಹಣ ನಗದು ಮೂಲಕ ೕಡುDಾ0ೆ ಅದರಂDೆ ಲOPರವರು KೆನL3ೇಶವರವ ಂದ ಹಣ
19000/- .
ಪ%ೆದು ಹಣವನುL ೕಡುDಾ0ೆ Zಾoೆ ೌಡರವರು SೆಣುVಮಗುjೆಂದು HT7ರುDಾ0 ೆ ಾ\
6000/- .
ಹಣವನುL ಲOPೕರವರು KೆನL3ೇಶವರವ ೆ Aಂ^ರುY7ರುDಾ0 ೆ


3ಾ ನ" ೆಂಗಳೆ ಬರುjಾಗ ಲOPೕರವರು SೆಣುV ಮಗುjೆಂದು HT7 ಇದನುL Dೆ ೆಸುH0ೕರ
,
ಎಂದು 3ೇTZಾಗ ನನL ಬT ಹಣ&ಲ" eೕಚ(ೆ ?ಾ9 Sೇಳnವ ದY KೆನL3ೇಶವರವರು HTಸುDಾ0 ೆ ಆಗ
.
ಲOPೕರವರು Sೇಗೂ ಬಂ^^;ೕ ೆ ಈಗ!ೇ ?ಾ973ೊTu ಎಂದು ಒDಾ0vಸುDಾ0 ೆ ಲOPೕರವರು

12
.
Qಾಗ ಮRರವರ ಬT ದೂರjಾl ಮೂಲಕ ಚcJ7Zಾಗ HTಸುDೆ0ೕ(ೆ ಎಂದು SೇಳnDಾ0 ೆ
.
Qಾಗ ಮRರವರು %ಾ ಪಲ"&ರವ ೆ ಲOPೕರವರ ನಂಬiಅನುL ೕಡುDಾ0ೆ ಪಲ"&ರವರು jಾxf ಅy
.
ಮುzಾಂತರ ಲOPೕರವ ೆ Zಾ { 5ಾ \"|ನ !ೊ3ೇಷ8 ಕಳnA7ರುDಾ0 ೆ ಎಲ"ರು %ಾ ಪಲ"&ರವರ
, #189/5 , , , -
¹Ó
Zಾ { 5ಾ \"| (ೆಲ ಮಹ9 mಾಮಣVನಗರ }!ಾ> ಮ ~ ಹH0ರ ೆಂಗಳರು
560026. .
ಇ "ೆ ಬರುDಾ0 ೆ ಅ "ೆ Qಾಗ ರವರು ಬರುDಾ0 ೆ

.23000/- .
Qಾಗ ಮRರವರು KೆನL3ೇಶವರವ ೆ ರೂ ಖKಾJಗುDೆ0 ಎಂದು HTಸುDಾ0 ೆ
7 . Cytolog
ಸು?ಾರು oಾಯಂ3ಾಲ ಗಂhೆXಾYರುತ0Zೆ Qಾಗ ಮRರವರು ಗಭJ5ಾತ3ಾWY ತಂ^ದ;
(Misoprostal 200mg) 3
?ಾDೆ'ಯನುL ಪಲ"&ರವರು ?ಾDೆ'ಗಳನುL ನುಂಗಲು ಮDೊ0ಂದು

?ಾDೆ'ಯನುL ಹIJತರವರ ಗು5ಾ0ಂಗ3ೆW ಇ,rರುDಾ0 ೆ KೆನL3ೇಶವರವ ೆ ಪಲ"&ರವರು Sೆಚು•ವ 
.
ಔಷಧ3ಾWY cೕ, ಬ ೆದು ತರಲು HTಸುDಾ0 ೆ


ಔಷ2 ತರಲು Sೋಗುjಾಗ ಅಷrರ!ಾ"ಗ!ೇ ಾಮನಗರ^ಂದ Sೆ>0 ಆ•ಸi ಾಜುರವರು ಕ ೆ

?ಾ9 ಭೂ'ಣ ಪDೆ0 ೆ ಾಮನಗರ3ೆW ಬಂ^ರುH0ೕ  ಇದು ತಪ b ಮಗು& ೆ Xಾವ Zೇ ೕH

Dೊಂದ ೆXಾದೆ 3ಾನೂನು ೕHಯ ಕ'ಮ ಜರುYಸ!ಾಗುವ Zೆಂದು HT7ರುDಾ0 ೆ ಅದರಂDೆ
.
KೆನL3ೇಶವರವರು Sೆದ 3ೊಂಡು ಹIJತರವರನುL ಮ(ೆ ೆ ಕ ೆದು3ೊಂಡು Sೋಗಲು ಧJಸುDಾ0ೆ

ಅದರಂDೆ \" |ೆ ಬಂದು ಪಲ"&ರವರ ಬT 3ೇTZಾಗ ಪಲ"&ರವರು ಆಗ KೆನL3ೇಶವರವರು ಪƒHJ
.4000/-
c\Dೆf ಆಗದ 3ಾರಣ ಚcJಸುDಾ0 ೆ ಪಲ"&ರವರು ?ಾDೆ'ಯ ಹಣ ರೂ Qೇ93ೆ ಹಣ 3ೇTZಾಗ
.3000/- .
KೆನL3ೇಶವರವರು ರೂ ಹಣ ೕ9 ಹIJತರವರನುL ಕ ೆದು3ೊಂಡು SೊರಡುDಾ0 ೆ ತದನಂತರ

Qಾಗ ರವರು KೆನL3ೇಶವರವ ೆ oಾ ಟ!ೈx ಬ  !ಾ;ಣದ ಬT }ಡಲು HT7Zಾಗ ಅವರನುL
5000/-
3ಾ ನ" }ಡುDಾ0 ೆ ಆಗ Qಾಗ ಮRರವರು ಹಣ ೇ93ೆ ಇಡುDಾ0 ೆ ಅದರಂDೆ KೆನL3ೇಶವರವರು
.5000/- . .5000/-
ರೂ 3ೊಟುr ಕಳnAಸುDಾ0 ೆ ನಂತರ Qಾಗ ಮRರವರು ತಮR ಮ(ೆvಂದ ರೂ
.
ಹಣವನುL ಲOPೕರವ ೆ ತಮR ಮಗಳ ನಂಬi ಂದ „ೕ85ೇ ಮೂಲಕ ವ ಾJvಸುDಾ0ೆ

12:30
ದಂಪHಗಳn ಮ(ೆ ೆ ಬಂದ ನಂತರ ಾH' 3ೆW Sೊhೆr (ೋವ  HೕವJ ರಕ0 oಾ'ವ
2
ಆಗುH0ರುವ ದನುL ಕಂಡು KೆನL3ೇಶವರವರು Sೆದ  ಬನಶಂಕ  (ೇ ಹಂತದ "ರುವ ಸ3ಾJ  ಆಸbDೆ' ೆ
|
DೆರಳnDಾ0 ೆ ೆTೆ_ ಅ "ನ jೈದ ರು %ಾ ರಮ ರವರು ಕಡಬ…f ಡXಾ ೋ7r|ೆ oಾWp ಂqೆ

HT7ರುDಾ0 ೆ ಅ " oಾWp ಂq ವರ^ಯ " ಮಗು ಮೃತಪ,rರುವ ದು jೈದ ರು ಖcತಪ97
,
jಾl&!ಾ  ಆಸbDೆ'ಯ " Dೆ ೆ73ೊಳuಲು ಸೂc7ರುDಾ0 ೆ ಅದರಂDೆ ಶ jಾರ G'ೕಮH ಹIJತ
12
KೆನL3ೇಶವರವರು ಗಂhೆ ಸಮಯ3ೆW jಾl &!ಾ  ಆಸbDೆ'ಯ "ರುವದು ಾಜ ಸ ಮ 5ಾ'23ಾರ3ೆW
.
HTದು !ಾ" ಸ ಮ 5ಾ'23ಾರ3ೆW ವರ^ ಸ "7ರುDಾ0ೆ ಅದರಂDೆ ಈ ಒಂದು ಭೂ'ಣ ಂಗ ಪDೆ0 ಮತು0

ಹDೆ ೆ ಪ'ತ jಾY ಮತು0 ಪ ೋjಾY ಸಹಕ 7ದವರ Sಾಗೂ jೈದ ೆಂದು oಾವJಜ ಕೆ ವಂಚ(ೆ

13

±ÀÆæ
?ಾಡುH0ದ; ವೃH0ಯ " ಶು ಷ\ ಆYರುವ ಪಲ"&ರವರ &ರುದ‡ ಪ'ಕರಣ Zಾಖ 73ೊಂಡು 3ಾನೂನು
.
ಕ'ಮ 3ೈ ೊಳnuವಂDೆ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮR " 3ೋ 3ೊಳnuDೆ0ೕ(ೆ

( ): . .& . . . 23 (4) .
ಸೂಚ(ೆ 6 7 6 ಎ8 9 , 3ಾ:; ಅನˆಯ G'ೕಮH ಹIJತರವ ೆ &(ಾvH
: 1. . 2. . 3. .
ಅಡಕಗಳn ಹIJತರವರ SೇT3ೆ KೆನL3ೇಶವರವರ SೇT3ೆ ಪಲ"&ರವರ SೇT3ೆ
4. . 5. .
ಲOPೕರವರ SೇT3ೆ Qಾಗ ಮRರವರ SೇT3ೆ


¸À»/-
: . &
ಸ‰ಳ ಾಟಾಯನಪರ !ಾ" ಆ ೋಗ ಮತು0 ಕುಟುಂಬ ಕ!ಾ ಾ23ಾ
: 30.08.2025. , ( . & . . . ),
^(ಾಂಕ !ಾ" ಸ ಮ 5ಾ'23ಾ  6 7 6 ಎ8 9 , 3ಾ:;
.”
ೆಂಗಳರು ನಗರ !ೆ"

The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.286/2025 for
offences punishable under Section 91 r/w. 3(5) of the BNS. Section
91 of the BNS, reads as follows:

“91. Act done with intent to prevent child being
born alive or to cause to die after birth.—

Whoever before the birth of any child does any act with
the intention of thereby preventing that child from being
born alive or causing it to die after its birth, and does by
such act prevent that child from being born alive, or
causes it to die after its birth, shall, if such act be not
caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of
the mother, be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, or
with fine, or with both.

Section 91 of the BNS punishes an act done with intent to
prevent the child being born alive or causing it to die after its birth.
It was Section 315 of the earlier regime – the IPC. The other

14
offence is the one punishable under Section 4 of the Act. It reads
as follows:
“4. Place where pregnancy may be terminated:

No termination of pregnancy shall be made in
accordance with this Act at any place other than, -

(a) hospital established or maintained by Government,
or

(b) a place for the time being approved for the
purpose of this Act by Government.”

Section 4 of the Act prohibits medical termination of
pregnancy except in cases where express permission is granted and
at permitted places. The complaint would prima facie become the
ingredients of the afore-quoted offences. The sequence of
events, as unfolded from the complaint and the
accompanying documents, discloses a chilling and
interconnected chain of facts that culminated in
extinguishment of a nascent life. The complaint lodged by a
public servant – the District Health and Family Welfare
Officer, is neither vague nor speculative as is contended, on
the contrary it is lucid in narration, precise in its detail and
grave in its import. The husband and the wife, accused No.1 and

15
Smt. Harsitha who had two female children born from the wedlock,
wanted to check the sex of the fetus. Therefore, acquaintances
were contacted which leads to one Bhagyamma. The accused Nos.
4 and 5 are said to be the agents to bring in patients for the
purpose of determination of sex and consequential acts.

11. Smt. Bhagyamma is said to have told accused No.1 that
it would cost ₹23,000/- to abort the fetus. When the victim was
taken to the said hospital, she was administered with Cytolog
(Misoprostal 200 mg) tablet and was sent home. Profused bleeding
takes place on the very night and the fetus dies. All this happened
due to the interconnected acts of all the accused. None of them can
declare themselves to be innocent at this stage. The materials,
prima facie, reveal the husband and the wife already parents
of two female children, embarked upon a deliberate quest to
ascertain the sex of the unborn child. This quest, tragically
rooted in gender prejudice, set in motion a series of
clandestine consultations, covert referrals, and illicit medical
interventions. Each accused is alleged to have played a
distinct yet independent role, some as facilitators, some as

16
intermediaries and some as medical professionals, forming a
seamless continuum of culpability.

12. The petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5, are not
portrayed as passive or peripheral figures, they are alleged
to be the very conduits through whom patients were
procured and channeled for the purpose of sex
determination and its inevitable corollary – sex selective
termination. The complaint alleges that upon disclosure that
the fetus was female, monetary negotiations ensued,
prohibitory medication was administered and the pregnant
woman was sent back, only to suffer profuse bleeding the
very same night, leading to the death of the fetus. At this
incipient stage, it would be wholly impressible to dissect the
episode in isolation or to exonerate individual protagonists
by compartmentalizing their roles. The law does not
countenance such piecemeal absolution where the
allegations disclose a concerted and cumulative design.

13. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.12346/2025 is accused No.1 in
C.C.No.2519/2025 arising out of PCR No.401/2025. The said

17
private complaint emerges out of the same facts as in the
companion petition, except the change in offences alleged. In the
case at hand, a private complaint comes to be registered by the
appropriate authority. Since the case has triggered from
registration of the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the
complaint insofar as it is germane. It reads as follows:

“PARTICULARS OF THE COMPLAINT

8. The Complainant is the District Health and Family Welfare
Officer, Ramanagara, and is duly authorized to file this
complaint by the Deputy Commissioner & District
Appropriate Authority, Ramanagara, vide Official
Memorandum dated 25/08/2025, a true copy of which is
annexed herewith as Annexure-A .

9. The Accused No. 1, Dr. Shashi S.L., is a Radiologist at the
District Hospital, Ramanagara. The said hospital is a
registered Genetic Clinic under the PC-PNDT Act, holding
Registration No. 60, a true copy of which is annexed
herewith as Annexure-B. The Accused No. 2 to 5 are
individuals who acted as agents, touts, and facilitators in
the criminal conspiracy.

ELABORATE FACTS:

10. It is submitted that on 25/08/2025, the State Appropriate
Authority, PC-PNDT, received credible information
regarding a case of illegal sex determination. Acting on
this, a joint investigation was conducted with the
Complainant District Authority, the detailed report of
which is annexed as Annexure-C.

11. The investigation revealed that the patient, Mrs,
Harshitha, and her husband, Mr. Channakeshava, seeking

18
to illegally determine the sex of their foetus, initiated
contact wife Accused No. 2, Lakshmi . Acting as the
primary mediator with a guilty mind, Accused No. 2 set
the entire criminal enterprise in motion by agreeing to
arrange the illegal scan through her network of contacts.
The statements of the patient, Mrs. Harshitha, and her
husband, Mr. Channakeshava (true copies of which are
annexed as Annexure-D ), detail this initial contact.
Crucially, Accused No. 2 Smt. Lakshmi, has subsequently
provided a voluntary statement, a true copy of which is
annexed herewith as Annexure-E , wherein she has
narrated the entire sequence of events and admitted to
her pivotal role in facilitating the crime, including the
subsequent arrangements for the illegal MTP.

9. Accused No. 2 then coordinated with Accused No. 3,
Bhagya, who acted as the field agent. On 22/08/2025,
Accused No. 3 met the patient at the District Hospital,
Ramanagara, and orchestrated the logistics. She was the
operational link on the ground, managing the patient's
movement, coordinating timings, and acting as the go-
between for the patient and the larger network. Her
presence and actions were instrumental in navigating the
hospital environment for this illicit purpose. Furthermore,
the Complainant submits that Accused No. 3, Smt.
Bhagya, has also provided a voluntary statement
confessing to her role as the field agent and corroborating
the entire criminal conspiracy, a true copy of which is
annexed herewith as Annexure-F.

10. To bypass legal procedures and signal to the doctor that
this was a pre-arranged illegal scan, a clandestine method
was used. Under instructions from the agents, the name
of Accused No. 4, Sharadamma , the main agent in the
network, was written on Mrs. Harshitha's hand. This name
served as a code, a clear indicator to the hospital staff
and specifically to Accused No. 1, that the patient was
part of their illegal network and was to be given special,
illicit access, thereby establishing a clear meeting of
minds among the conspirators.

11. On 22/08/2025, Accused No. 1, Dr. Shashi S.L., the
radiologist, committed the principal illegal act in

19
Furtherance of this conspiracy. Abusing his professional
Position, he conducted the ultrasound scan on Mrs.
Harshitha for the sole illegal purpose of sex
determination, a flagrant violation of the absolute
prohibition under Section 6 of the Act. Furthermore, after
determining the sex of the foetus, he communicated this
prohibited information to his co-conspirators in the agent
network, thereby enabling the final illegal disclosure to
the patient's family, a direct contravention of Section 5.
To actively conceal his involvement, he deliberately
created a manual Form F, a copy of which is annexed as
Annexure-G , to circumvent standard digital record-
keeping and create a false paper trail. His actions were
the linchpin of the entire crime, providing not only the
technical means for sex determination but also initiating
the illegal chain of communication.

12. Following the scan, the financial aspect of the conspiracy
was executed. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid to Accused
No. 2, who then met with Accused No. 5, the husband
of Sharadamma. Accused No. 5 acted as the money
collector and the crucial information courier. He received
the bulk payment of Rs. 19,000/- on behalf of the
network. After receiving the payment, it was Accused No.
5 who completed the criminal act by illegally
communicating the sex of the foetus to Accused No. 2,
stating that it was a female. This direct communication is
a flagrant violation of Section 5 of the PC-PNDT Act and
was the sole purpose of this elaborate conspiracy.

13. The information illegally conveyed by the accused had an
immediate and grave consequence. It directly led the
patient and her family, with the continued assistance of
the agents, to seek an illegal abortion at a clinic in
Bengaluru, with the express purpose of terminating the
female foetus. This subsequent act proves that the crime
committed by the accused in Ramanagara was not merely
a technical violation, but a direct and material step in the
commission of female foeticide.

14. On 25/08/2025, an official inspection of the District
Hospital was conducted, and a Panchanama was drawn, a
copy of which is annexed as Annexure-H . During this

20
inspection, several incriminating documents, including the
ANC Register and the Patient Appointment Register
(true copies annexed as Annexure-I ), and multiple
improperly maintained forms (5 online Form Fs and 3
manual Form Fs, true copies annexed as Annexure-J ),
were seized. The investigation further found that
signatures of other pregnant women were taken on blank
sheets and incorrect contact numbers were recorded for
others, indicating that the case of Mrs. Harshitha was not
an isolated incident but part of a larger, systematic
pattern of non-compliance and illegal activity designed to
frustrate the objectives of the Act.

15. The Complainant further submits that CCTV footage from
the District Hospital, Ramanagara, for the date of the
incident has been secured and preserved in a pen drive.
This footage visually corroborates the presence and
movements of the accused persons within the hospital
premises, substantiating the timeline of the Criminal
conspiracy as detailed in the witness statements. A copy
of the pen drive is annexed as Annexure-K.

16. The aforementioned acts of the Accused constitute a well-
organized criminal enterprise and grave offences under
the PC-PNDT Act, 1994. The cause of action for this
complaint arose on 22/08/2025 and 23/08/2025, within
the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

17. The complaint is filed within the period of limitation as
prescribed by law. The relevant documents referred to in
the preceding paragraphs are annexed herewith for the
kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE , the Complainant prays that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to

A. Take cognizance of the offences committed by all the
Accused under Sections 4, 5, 6, 22, and 23 of the PC-
PNDT Act, 1994.

21
B. Convict and punish all the Accused with the maximum
penalty prescribed under the law.

C. Pass any other order or relief that this Hon'ble Court
deems fit in the interest of justice.

Place: Ramanagara
Date: 03/09/2025

Sd/-
Complainant
Dr. Niranjan B.S
District Health and Family Welfare Officer

!ಾ" ಆ ೋಗ ಮತು0 ಕುಟುಂಬ
, .”
ಕ!ಾ ಾ23ಾಗಳn ೆಂಗಳರು ದOಣ !ೆ"

Based upon the said complaint, the concerned Court takes
cognizance and issues summons. The issuing of summons is what
has driven the accused No.1 – Radiologist to this Court on the
contention that there is violation of law insofar taking of cognizance
is concerned, apart from the fact that, the order of taking of
cognizance bears no application of mind. It therefore becomes
necessary to notice the order of taking of cognizance. The order on
the complaint reads as follows:

“This is the private complaint filed by the complainant,
the District Appropriate Authority, Ramanagara constituted
under the PC-PNDT Act, represented by Dr. Niranjan B.S.,
District Health and Family Welfare Officer, Ramangara,
Bengaluru South District under Section 223 of Bharathiya
Nagarika Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 for the offences punishable

22
under Sections 4, 5, 6, 22 and 23 of the Pre-Conception and
Pre-natal Diagnostic Technologies (Prohibition of Sex Selection)
Act, 1994.

2. Heard the complainant side and on perusal of the
materials available on records makes it clear that there are
prima facie materials to proceed against the accused Nos.1 to 5.
Hence, cognizance is taken under Section 210(1)(a) of the
B.N.S.S. 2023.

3. At this stage the complainant has presented this
complaint on his official capacity, hence the sworn statement of
the complainant is dispensed with. Further on careful scrutiny
of the complainant and annexed documents shows that there
are sufficient grounds for proceed against the accused Nos. 1 to
5 for the offences punishable under Sections 4, 5, 6, 22 & 23 of
the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Technologies
(Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. Hence, as per the
section 227 of BNSS, the Court proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

Office is hereby directed to register the criminal case
against the accused Nos.1 to 5 in the register No.III for the
offence punishable under Section 23 of the PC-PNDT Act, 1994.

Issue summons to the accused Nos. 1 to 5.

R/by 29.10.2025.”

The contention that the order of cognizance suffers from
non-application of mind is equally untenable. The learned
Magistrate has recorded satisfaction, upon perusal of the
complaint and annexed documents, that sufficient prima
facie material exists to proceed against the accused. At the
stage of taking of cognizance, law does not require, the

23
concerned Court to undertake a meticulous evaluation of
evidence as in a trial, it requires only the judicial satisfaction
that the allegations if taken at face value, disclose the
commission of an offence. The threshold stands amply crossed
in the case at hand.

14. More importantly, this Court cannot be oblivious to
the larger societal malaise that forms the backdrop of the
present case. Female foeticide is not merely a statutory
offence, it is a moral blight and a constitutional affront. The
Apex Court has repeatedly underscored that leniency, at the
threshold in such matters, risks rendering the law a dead
letter and emboldening those who trade in gender
discrimination under the cloak of medical expertise. The
Apex Court in REKHA SENGAR v. STATE OF MADHYA
1
PRADESH , has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
7. To understand the severity of the offence, it is
imperative to note the legislative history of the PC & PNDT Act.
Reference may be had to the Preamble; which states as follows:


1

(2021) 3 SCC 729

24
“An Act to provide for the prohibition of sex
selection, before or after conception, and for
regulation of pre-natal diagnostic techniques for
the purposes of detecting genetic abnormalities or
metabolic disorders or chromosomal abnormalities
or certain congenital malformations or sex-linked
disorders and for the prevention of their misuse
for sex determination leading to female foeticide ;
and, for matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto.”
(emphasis supplied)
8. The passage of this Act was compelled by a cultural
history of preference for the male child in India, rooted in a
patriarchal web of religious, economic and social factors. This
has birthed numerous social evils such as female infanticide,
trafficking of young girls, and bride buying and now, with the
advent of technology, sex-selection and female foeticide. The
pervasiveness of this preference is reflected through the census
data on the skewed sex-ratio in India. Starting from the 1901
census which recorded 972 females per 1000 males; there was
an overall decline to 941 females in 1961, and 930 females in
1971, going further down to 927 females in 1991. Records of
Lok Sabha discussions on the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques
(Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Bill, 1991 reflect various
members' concern with this alarming state of affairs, which
acted as a clarion call to the passage of the PC & PNDT Act.
( See : Lok Sabha Debates, Tenth Series, Vol. XXXIII No. 2, 26-
7-1994, Eleventh Session, at pp. 506-544.)

9. The prevalence of pre-natal sex selection and
foeticide has also attracted international censure and
provoked calls for strict regulation. In September 1995,
the UN 4th World Conference on Women, adopted the
Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action which inter
alia declared female foeticide and pre-natal sex-selection
as forms of violence against women. [ See : Beijing
Declaration and Platform for Action, adopted in 16th
plenary meeting of UN 4th World Conference on Women,
(15-9-1995), Article 115.]

10. While the sex ratio has improved since after the
passage of the PC & PNDT Act, rising to 933 as per the
2001 census, and then to 943 in the 2011 census, these

25
pernicious practices still remain rampant. As per the reply
filed by the then Minister of State, Health and Family
Welfare in the Rajya Sabha on 27-3-2018, as of December
2017, around 3986 court cases had been filed under the
Act, resulting in only 449 convictions and 136 cases of
suspension of medical licences.
11. The unrelenting continuation of this immoral practice,
the globally shared understanding that it constitutes a form of
violence against women, and its potential to damage the very
fabric of gender equality and dignity that forms the bedrock of
our Constitution are all factors that categorically establish pre-
natal sex determination as a grave offence with serious
consequences for the society as a whole.

12. We may also refer with benefit to the observations of
this Court in Voluntary Health Assn. of Punjab v. Union of
India [ Voluntary Health Assn. of Punjab v. Union of India ,
(2013) 4 SCC 1 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 287] , as follows : (SCC p.
5, paras 6-7)

“ 6 . … Above statistics is an indication that the
provisions of the Act are not properly and effectively
being implemented. There has been no effective
supervision or follow-up action so as to achieve the
object and purpose of the Act. Mushrooming of various
sonography centres, genetic clinics, genetic counselling
centres, genetic laboratories, ultrasonic clinics, imaging
centres in almost all parts of the country calls for more
vigil and attention by the authorities under the Act. But,
unfortunately, their functioning is not being properly
monitored or supervised by the authorities under the Act
or to find out whether they are misusing the pre-natal
diagnostic techniques for determination of sex of foetus
leading to foeticide.

7 . … Seldom, the ultrasound machines used for
such sex determination in violation of the provisions of
the Act are seized and, even if seized, they are being
released to the violators of the law only to repeat the
crime. Hardly few cases end in conviction. The cases
booked under the Act are pending disposal for several
years in many courts in the country and nobody takes
any interest in their disposal and hence, seldom, those

26
cases end in conviction and sentences, a fact well known
to the violators of law.”

13. In the present case, contrary to the prevailing
practice, the investigative team has seized the sonography
machine and made out a strong prima facie case against the
petitioner. Therefore, we find it imperative that no leniency
should be granted at this stage as the same may reinforce the
notion that the PC & PNDT Act is only a paper tiger and that
clinics and laboratories can carry out sex determination and
foeticide with impunity. A strict approach has to be adopted if
we are to eliminate the scourge of female foeticide and iniquity
towards girl children from our society. Though it certainly
remains open to the petitioner to disprove the merits of these
allegations at the stage of trial.

14. The fact that on 13-10-2020 [ Durgesh
Shrivas v. State of M.P. , 2020 SCC OnLine MP 3137] , the co-
accused in the present case was released on bail by the High
Court in MCRC No. 39380 of 2020 does not alter our
conclusions. The allegations in the FIR and the charge-
sheet, as well the disclosure statements made by the
petitioner and the co-accused under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act, 1872, reveal that prima facie, the petitioner
had a more active role in conducting the alleged illegal
medical practices of sex determination and sex-selective
abortion. Whereas the alleged role of the co-accused was
limited to merely picking up and dropping off the
petitioner's clients. Hence, we find no grounds for
granting parity with the co-accused to the petitioner.

15. Thus, in view of the presence of prima facie
evidence against the petitioner and other factors as
referred to supra, we find ourselves compelled to uphold
the impugned order [ Rekha Sengar v. State of M.P. , 2020
SCC OnLine MP 3139] of the High Court denying bail to
the petitioner. However, in light of this Court's directions
in Voluntary Health Assn. of Punjab [ Voluntary Health Assn. of
Punjab v. Union of India , (2013) 4 SCC 1 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri)
287] mandating speedy disposal of such cases it is open for the
petitioner to request the trial court to expedite her trial and
decide it within a period of 1 year.”

27

The Apex Court clearly holds that the scourge of female foeticide
must be curbed. The unrelenting continuance of the said immoral
practice, constitutes a form of violence against woman and its
potential the damage the very fabric of gender equality. The Apex
Court holds that pre-natal sex determination is a grave offence,
with serious consequences to the society as a whole.

15. In the light of the glaring facts obtaining in the
case at hand, interference at this stage under the guise of
exercising inherent or extraordinary jurisdiction would
amount to throttling a legitimate prosecution in its infancy.
The truth or otherwise of the allegations, the degree of
individual culpability and the veracity of evidence, are all
matters that properly belong to the crucible of trial.
Consequently, this Court finds no justification to interdict the
proceedings or to extend the relief of quashment. The petitions
are devoid of merit and are to be dismissed.

28
16. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:


O R D E R


(i) Criminal Petitions are dismissed.


(ii) It is made clear that the observations made in the
course of the order are only for the purpose of
consideration of the case under Section 528 of the
BNSS and the same would not influence the
investigation or further proceedings, before the
concerned Court.

Pending application if any, also stand disposed.





Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE


Bkp
CT:MJ