Clandestine sex determination and fetal termination constitute grave offences against gender equality, warranting full trial.

The case involves two sets of petitioners arising from the same factual matrix.

A pregnant woman (Smt. Harsitha), already having two daughters, sought to determine the sex of her third fetus.

Petitioners in Crl.P. 884/2026 (Accused 4 and 5) allegedly acted as agents/facilitators, coordinating with intermediaries to arrange a scan.

The petitioner in Crl.P. 14326/2025 (Accused 1, a Radiologist) conducted the ultrasound.

After the fetus was disclosed as female, the couple was allegedly provided medication for abortion by other accused persons.

The woman developed profuse bleeding, and the fetus died.

A complaint was filed by the District Health and Family Welfare Officer, leading to FIR No. 286/2025 under Section 4 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act and Sections 91 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

As well as a private complaint (C.C.No. 2519/2025) under Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act.

The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings, claiming innocence and lack of evidence.

Whether the allegations in the complaint and the material on record prima facie disclose the commission of offences under the MTP Act, BNS, and PCPNDT Act to warrant trial.

Whether the order of taking cognizance by the Magistrate suffered from non-application of mind or procedural irregularity.

The Court primarily applied Section 91 of the BNS (corresponding to Section 315 IPC), which criminalizes acts done with the intent to prevent a child from being born alive.

And Section 4 of the MTP Act, which prohibits the termination of pregnancy at unapproved locations.

Furthermore, it invoked Sections 4, 5, 6, and 23 of the PCPNDT Act, 1994, which strictly prohibit sex selection and the disclosure of the sex of a fetus.

The Court heavily relied on the precedent of Rekha Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021), which established that pre-natal sex determination is a grave offence against society and gender equality, requiring a strict judicial approach rather than leniency at the threshold.

The Court observed that the link in the chain of events was clearly established by the District Health Officer’s complaint, which was neither vague nor speculative.

The Court found that the petitioners in Crl.P. 884/2026 were not peripheral figures but essential conduits who procured patients for illegal sex determination.

Regarding the Radiologist (Accused 1), the Court noted that he allegedly conducted the scan for the sole purpose of sex determination and used coded methods (writing a name on the patient’s hand) to bypass legal protocols.

The Court rejected the argument of non-application of mind in the cognizance order, stating that at the preliminary stage, the Magistrate is only required to see if a prima facie case exists, not to conduct a "meticulous evaluation of evidence".

Applying the Rekha Sengar doctrine, the Court reasoned that staying such a "legitimate prosecution" would render the PCPNDT Act a "paper tiger" and embolden those participating in female foeticide.

It held that the "chilling and interconnected chain of facts" culminated in the extinguishment of a nascent life, and the veracity of the evidence must be tested in the "crucible of trial" rather than through quashment.

The Court affirmed that interference under Section 528 of the BNSS was unjustified as the materials sufficiently indicated a concerted criminal design.

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.