Court affirms authority of District Appropriate Authority's authorised officer to file complaints and holds that procedural irregularities in inspection do not invalidate prosecution under PC&PNDT Act
In a significant judgment dated 15th September 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Manisha Batra, dismissed petitions seeking quashing of a criminal complaint filed under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PC&PNDT Act). The complaint pertained to alleged violations by M/s Shri Balaji Imaging & Pathology Centre Pvt. Ltd., Bahadurgarh, including deficiencies in statutory records and procedural lapses related to ultrasound examinations.
The case arose from an inspection conducted on 20th January 2014 by a team constituted by the District Appropriate Authority, following receipt of secret information about irregularities at the ultrasound centre. The inspection revealed numerous deficiencies such as incomplete or unsigned Form-Fs, absence of patient spouse details, and discrepancies in signatures on ultrasound reports. The complaint was filed by the Deputy Civil Surgeon-cum-Nodal Officer authorised by the District Appropriate Authority.
The petitioners, including Dr. Renu Deswal and Dr. Vinit Gupta, challenged the complaint on multiple grounds: that the complaint was not filed by the full District Appropriate Authority but by a single authorised officer; that the inspection and search were conducted without proper statutory authorisation; lack of independent witnesses during inspection; and that Dr. Vinit Gupta had resigned prior to the inspection date and hence could not be held liable.
Rejecting these arguments, the High Court held that under Section 28(1)(a) of the PC&PNDT Act, a complaint can be instituted by the Appropriate Authority or by an officer authorised by it. The court accepted the State's affidavit that the complaint was duly authorised by the District Appropriate Authority, emphasizing that the absence of the signatures of all members on the complaint did not invalidate the complaint.
On the legality of the inspection, the court acknowledged the Supreme Court precedent that a collective decision of the multi-member District Appropriate Authority is required to authorise searches under Section 30. However, it clarified that even if the authorisation was defective, the material collected during inspection, including statutory records, remains admissible and relevant unless proven otherwise. The court distinguished between the legality of the search and the evidentiary value of the seized material.
Regarding non-joining of independent witnesses, the court noted that despite efforts, no local persons agreed to join the inspection. It observed that the absence of independent witnesses does not ipso facto invalidate the proceedings.
On the plea of Dr. Vinit Gupta, the court held that the resignation dated 31.10.2013 did not conclusively absolve him, as some ultrasound reports dated after his resignation bore his name, raising factual questions to be resolved at trial.
The court reiterated that the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings is to be exercised sparingly and not to weigh evidence or conduct a mini-trial. It found the allegations in the complaint specific and not inherently improbable, warranting full trial.
This decision underscores the judiciary's support for the effective enforcement of the PC&PNDT Act, aimed at curbing sex-selective practices and female foeticide, by upholding the statutory framework for inspection, record-keeping, and prosecution.
Bottom Line:
The legality of the inspection and complaint filed under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PC&PNDT Act), along with subsequent proceedings, was upheld, and the petitions to quash the complaint were dismissed.
Statutory provision(s): Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 Sections 4(3), 5, 6, 17, 17A, 23, 28(1)(a), 29, 30; PC&PNDT Rules 1996 Rules 9, 10, 12; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482
Renu Deswal v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2981387
