Allowed

Smt. Dr Pruthvi v. the District Appropriate Authority (Daa)

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2024CRL.P/1546/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Radiologist arrayed as accused No.4 in PCPNDT Act proceedings over alleged sex determination at a scan centre sought quashing. Documents showed she was on postnatal leave after delivering a baby before the search and absent per the complaint itself; continuing trial would abuse process. Proceedings quashed qua her.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.2095/2022 quashed qua petitioner - accused No.4.

Smt. Dr Pruthvi Vs the District Appropriate Authority (Daa) — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:44322 CRL.P No. 1546 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1546 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. DR. PRUTHVI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, SA POORNIKE NILAYA, G. MADEGOWDA LAYOUT, BHARATHINAGARA, K.M. DODDI,

¶8

(SMT. DR. PRUTHVI H.K, WO DR. MOHAN BABU G.B, K.M. DODDI, C A KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MADYA - 571 422)

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR K, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE DISTRICT APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY (DAA). P.C AND P.N.D.T, DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICE MANDYA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT NODAL OFFICER AND DISTRICT FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER, DR. SHASHIDHAR K.R, MANDYA - 571 401.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

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

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2095/2022 FOR

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:44322 CRL.P No. 1546 of 2023

¶19

THE OFFENCE P/U/S 23, 23(1), 23(2), 20(1), 20(2), 20(3) AND OTHER A RELEVANT SECTION OF PRE-CONCEPTION AND PRENATAL DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES (PROHIBITION OF SEX SELECTION) ACT ON THE FILES OF I ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALAVALLI.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.2095/2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 23, 23(1), 23(2), 20(1), 20(2), 20(3) and other relevant section of Pre-Conception And PreNatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994.

¶24

The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4. The role

¶25

of the petitioner is that of a radiologist in the said scan center, which was the subject matter of search and seizure by the competent authority, the respondent herein.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:44322 CRL.P No. 1546 of 2023

¶28

Heard Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel appearing

¶29

for the petitioner and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent.

¶30

It is the case of the prosecution upon certain credible information that accused No.1 is running the scan center and is conducting sex determination of the foetus of a pregnant women. Based upon this, a search comes to be conducted, during which it comes to light that accused No.8 - a pregnant women reveals that she had come to the scan centre for determination of sex of the foetus. It is then all the accused are drawn into the web of proceedings. The petitioner, a doctor - radiologist is arrayed as accused No.4. On a complaint being registered and summons being issued, on cognizance being taken, the petitioner is at the doors of this Court.

¶31

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would take this Court through the documents appended to the petition to demonstrate that the petitioner had delivered a baby on 31.07.2022, 20 days prior to the conduct of search and therefore, was not even in the alleged seen of crime nor there is any allegation against her.

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:44322 CRL.P No. 1546 of 2023

¶33

The learned Additional SPP would however seek to

¶34

refute the submission to contend that these facts will have to be trashed out in a full bloom trial and seeks dismissal of the petition.

¶35

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

¶36

The issue qua accused No.4 - the petitioner revolves round a narrow compass. The allegation against the petitioner is determination of sex, since she is a radiologist. Documents produced by the petitioner would clearly indicate that she was on postnatal leave after having delivered a baby. Therefore, she was not even present in the clinic. This stand of the petitioner is vindicated on a perusal of the complaint itself. The complaint at paragraph 8 records the absence of the petitioner in the scanning centre at the time of search, obviously so, as the petitioner as observed hereinabove was on a postnatal care. On the solitary ground, if the petitioner is permitted to be tried, it would become an abuse of the process of the law and would result in miscarriage of justice.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:44322 CRL.P No. 1546 of 2023

¶39

For the aforesaid reasons, the petition deserves to

¶40

be succeed and the following

¶41

ORDER

¶42

Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶43

The proceedings in C.C.No.2095/2022 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Malavalli Court stands quashed qua the petitioner - accused No.4.

¶44

SD/(M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0 CT: BHK

Smt. Dr Pruthvi v. the District Appropriate Authority (Daa)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Dr Pruthvi v. the District Appropriate Authority (Daa)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Chowdappa Bhaskar. Vs Kullachanda Chinnappa Subbaiah

Sri. Devaraju S Vs State by Maddur P.S.

Mr Moosa Kaleemulla Khan Vs Mrs Nagma Nikath

Mr Sunil Kumar R Vs State by Women Police Station

Mrs Fathima Vs State by

Mr. Farhan F Vs State by Mysuru City Women P.S.