Naresh Kumar Garg Vs State of Haryana And Ors (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court considered an appeal challenging the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act). The appeal arose from a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of a complaint filed by the District Appropriate Authority and the summoning order issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram.
Background of the Case
The appellant is a qualified radiologist working at a diagnostic centre in Gurugram. On 17 September 2015, the Chairman of the District Appropriate Authority-cum-Civil Surgeon received a complaint alleging that a doctor was operating a racket involving illegal sex determination. Following this complaint, a team was constituted to conduct a raid.
A pregnant woman visiting Civil Hospital for a routine check-up agreed to act as a decoy patient. Another individual contacted the suspected intermediary doctor, requesting sex determination for the decoy patient. The intermediary allegedly demanded ₹25,000 for the service and arranged for the ultrasound to be conducted by the appellant at a diagnostic centre.
The decoy patient and the shadow witness travelled with the intermediary to the diagnostic centre. According to the complaint, the intermediary stated that the appellant would perform the ultrasound without making any entry in the records, without asking the patient to sign documents, and without signing the ultrasound report.
The raiding team followed the vehicle and entered the diagnostic centre after the ultrasound was conducted. ₹25,000 was recovered from the intermediary doctor. The authorities also checked the records at the clinic and found that the decoy patient’s details were not entered in the register and that the mandatory Form F was not filled or signed.
FIR and Discharge in Police Investigation
Based on the raid, an FIR was registered on the same day. However, during police investigation, the prosecution filed an application seeking discharge of the appellant. The police stated that although the appellant had conducted an ultrasound, there was no evidence that he had disclosed the sex of the foetus. The police therefore sought his discharge, and the Judicial Magistrate accepted the application on 28 October 2015.
Complaint Under the PCPNDT Act
Subsequently, the District Advisory Committee held a meeting in December 2015 and recommended filing a complaint against the intermediary doctor, the appellant, and the diagnostic centre for contravention of the PCPNDT Act and Rules.
In September 2018, the District Appropriate Authority authorized the Deputy Civil Surgeon to file a complaint under Sections 4, 5, 6 and 29 of the PCPNDT Act read with Rules 9 and 10 of the PCPNDT Rules. The complaint was filed with a request for condonation of delay, which was allowed by the trial court.
Later, the Judicial Magistrate issued summons to the accused persons in September 2022. The appellant then approached the High Court seeking quashing of the complaint and summoning order. The High Court dismissed the petition in July 2024, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Appellant
The appellant argued that he was wrongly prosecuted following an illegal raid and sting operation. It was submitted that:
