Satish S/O Balasaheb Gaware vs the State of Maharashtra… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

Satish S/O Balasaheb Gaware vs the State of Maharashtra… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashment of the proceeding in Regular Criminal Case No.1919/2024 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad, arising from Crime No.177/2024 (Pundliknagar Police Station), granted in terms of prayer Clause (B).

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceeding in Regular Criminal Case No.1919/2024 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad, arising from Crime No.177/2024, should be quashed for want of incriminating material against the applicant. +1 more

Court's answer

The applicant is not named in the FIR and is shown as accused only in the charge-sheet; his alleged role (that he had bought three probe machines from Delhi and provided one to accused Satish Sonawane, seized in the raid/decoy operation) is sought to be brought on record solely on the basis of information given by accused/Satish Sonawane during his police custody, and the entire charge-sheet is otherwise silent about the applicant's role and participation.

Ratio / Principle

There is nothing to suggest that the applicant was illegally in possession of a probe or that, in contravention of Section 3-B of the PCPNDT Act, he sold the instrument/equipment to any person not registered under the Act; nor was the statement of accused Satish Sonawane independently recorded as approver, or is there other evidence showing Sonawane procured the probe from the applicant.

Key takeaways

Under the statutory scheme, Sections 23 and 25 of the PCPNDT Act deal with offences and penalties; Section 23 concerns contraventions by medical practitioners/genetic centres personnel, while Section 25 covers contraventions by any person for which no specific provision exists; accordingly, contravention of Section 3-B of the PCPNDT Act would be punishable under Section 25 of the PCPNDT Act.ratio¶8
To make out an offence under Section 3-B of the PCPNDT Act, evidence must be brought on record showing illegal sale of ultrasound machines to a person, laboratory or clinic not registered under the Act; however, the entire charge-sheet is silent as to the basis of the accusations against the applicant, and although the gist of the prosecution rests on the so-called statement of accused Satish Sonawane during police custody, that statement is not reflected anywhere in the charge-sheet; a statement of accusation in summary cannot, by itself, be treated as a charge-sheet unless supported by witness statements or documents substantiating the accusation.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal proceeding quashed - PCPNDT Act - insufficient material in charge-sheet. Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), S.G. Chapalgaonkar J., 20-04-2026, allowed Criminal Application No.684 of 2025 and quashed the proceeding in Regular Criminal Case No.1919/2024 (JMFC, Aurangabad; Crime No.177/2024, Pundliknagar PS) framed under Sections 420, 312, 313 r/w 34 IPC, Section 33(2) Maharashtra Medical Practitioner Act, Sections 23, 25, 3-B PCPNDT Act and Sections 4 and 5 MTP Act against applicant Satish s/o Balasaheb Gaware, a medical practitioner. Findings: applicant not named in FIR, shown as accused only in the charge-sheet filed against 19 accused; his sole alleged role (supply of a probe machine to co-accused Satish Sonawane; three probes allegedly bought from Delhi) rests exclusively on Sonawane's police-custody statement, which is not reflected anywhere in the charge-sheet; charge-sheet summary otherwise silent on the applicant's role. An offence under Section 3-B PCPNDT Act requires evidence of sale of an ultrasound/imaging machine capable of detecting foetal sex to a person/lab/clinic not registered under the Act, contravention thereof being punishable under Section 25; a summary statement of accusation unsupported by witness statements or documents cannot by itself be treated as a charge-sheet. Relying on State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 (para 102), inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC exercised to prevent abuse of process. Respondent no.2 (Medical Officer Dr. Amarjyoti Jayant Shinde) was the informant whose tip led to the raid/decoy operation at Deogiri Apartment, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.