Allowed¶8

Dr. Venkatesha M.P v. the District Appropriate Authority (Daa) P.C. and P.N.D.T

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2025CRL.P/5800/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: PCPNDT Act 1994; Section 482 CrPC; quashing of proceedings; doctrine of parity; arraignment on co-accused statement; no corroborative material; radiologist; Malavalli Scanning Centre; raid dated 24.08.2022; C.C.No.2095/2022; PCR No.243/2022; Crl.P.No.1546/2023; accused No.3; Taluk General Hospital T.Narasipura; pre-natal sex identification tests; Sections 20, 23, 28 and 30 PCPNDT Act; I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Malavalli; service certificate dated 23.06.2022.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned proceedings in C.C.No.2095/2022 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Malavalli quashed qua the petitioner-accused No.3. ¶8

Dr. Venkatesha M.P Vs the District Appropriate Authority (Daa) P.C. and P.N.D.T — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; impugned proceedings in C.C.No.2095/2022 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Malavalli quashed qua the petitioner-accused No.3.

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings in C.C.No.2095/2022 qua the petitioner (accused No.3) deserve to be quashed where the record (attendance register, work/service certificate) shows he was working as Radiologist at Taluk General Hospital, T.Narasipura and was not present at Malavalli Scanning Centre on the date of the raid (24.08.2022), and he was arraigned solely on the alleged statement of co-accused No.1-Dhanush without corroborative material. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

The material on record (attendance register, work certificate etc.) clearly indicates that the petitioner was working as Radiologist in Taluk General Hospital, T.Narasipura and not at Malavalli Scanning Centre as on the date of the raid on 24.08.2022.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Merely on the basis of the alleged statement of co-accused No.1-Dhanush, who is undisputedly the owner of the Malavalli Scanning Centre, the petitioner could not have been dragged into the impugned proceedings without there being any corroborative material.

¶7

Key takeaways

In the light of the order passed under identical circumstances in relation to accused No.4 in Crl.P.No.1546/2023 (doctrine of parity), the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner-accused No.3 also deserve to be quashed.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC — quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.2095/2022 (offences under Sections 23, 23(1), 23(2), 20(1), 20(2), 20(3), 28 and 30 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994) — petitioner, a radiologist, arraigned as accused No.3 after raid on Malavalli Scanning Centre on 24.08.2022 — attendance register and work certificate showed he was working at Taluk General Hospital, T.Narasipura on the raid date and was not present at the scanning centre — arraignment rested solely on the alleged statement of co-accused No.1-Dhanush, the undisputed owner of the centre, without corroborative material — proceedings qua accused No.4 (Dr.Pruthvi), likewise absent on the raid date, had already been quashed in Crl.P.No.1546/2023 dated 05.11.2024 — applying the doctrine of parity, proceedings quashed qua petitioner. Petition allowed.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4836 CRL.P No. 5800 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5800 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

DR. VENKATESHA M.P., S/O LATE PARAMESHA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RADIOLOGIST, WORKING AT GOVERNMENT TALUK HOSPITAL, T. NARASIPURA, R/AT NO. 107, 1ST CROSS, 2ND STAGE, NIVEDITHA NAGAR MYSORE - 570 004. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

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. SHADHIDHAR K R, MANDYA - 571 401, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 01.

¶11

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. THEJESH P., HCGP)

¶12

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2095/2022 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 23, 23(1), 23(2), 20(1), 20(2), 20(3) AND OTHER RELEVANT SECTION OF PRE-CONCEPTION AND

¶13

¶14

NC: 2025:KHC:4836 CRL.P No. 5800 of 2023

¶15

PRE-NATAL DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES (PROHIBITION OF SEX SELECTION) ACT, 1994 ON THE FILES OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MALAVALLI.

¶16

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

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following relief:-

¶20

"To quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.2095/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 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, 1994 on the files of I Additional Civil Judge & JMFC at Malavalli in the interest of justice."

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for respondent and perused the material on record.

¶22

Perusal of the material on record would indicate that on 24.08.2022, raid was conducted by the respondent at Malavalli Scanning Centre, pursuant to which, impugned complaint in PCR No.243/2022 was filed by the respondent inter alia alleging that petitioner-accused No.3 and other accused persons committed offences punishable under Section 23, 23(1), 23(2), 20(1), 20(2), 20(3) and other relevant

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4836 CRL.P No. 5800 of 2023

¶24

section of Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition Of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (for short 'the said Act, 1994'). It was contented that petitioner-accused No.3 was the Doctor along with other accused persons conducted pre-natal sex identification tests and thereby violated the provisions of Sections 28 and 30 of the said Act, 1994.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the various contentions urged in the petition and refer to the material on record and invite my attention to the service certificate dated 23.06.2022 in order to point out that petitioner was working at Taluk General Hospital, T.Narasipura and was never working at Malavalli Scanning Centre and petitioner has been wrongly arraigned as accused No.3 only on the basis of alleged statement of co-accused No.1-Dhanush, who is said to be owner of the Malavalli Scanning Centre. It is submitted that even on the date of raid conducted on 24.08.2022, petitioner was not present or found in the said centre, as can be seen from the attendance register which indicates that, he was working at Taluk General Hospital, T.Narasipura. It is also submitted that under identical circumstances in relation to accused No.4 Dr.Pruthvi, who was also not present at Malavalli

¶26

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4836 CRL.P No. 5800 of 2023

¶27

Scanning Centre on that date, this Court was pleased to quash the proceedings and as such, by applying / invoking doctrine of parity, impugned proceedings qua the petitioner deserve to be quashed.

¶28

Per contra , learned HCGP for the respondent would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶29

As rightly contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court in Crl.P.No.1546/2023 dated 05.11.2024 in relation to accused No.4-Dr.Pruthvi, held as under:-

¶30

"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 Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994.

¶31

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

¶32

3. Heard Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent.

¶33

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4836 CRL.P No. 5800 of 2023

¶34

4. 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.

¶35

5. 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.

¶36

6. The learned Additional SPP would however seek to 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.

¶37

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

¶38

8. 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

¶39

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4836 CRL.P No. 5800 of 2023

¶40

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.

¶41

9. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition deserves to be succeed and the following

¶42

ORDER

¶43

1. Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶44

2. 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.

¶45

In instance case also, perusal of the material on record viz., attendance register, work certificate etc., clearly indicates that petitioner was working as Radiologist in the Taluk General Hospital, T.Narasipura and not at Malavalli Scanning Centre, as on the date of the raid on 24.08.2022 and consequently merely on the basis of the alleged statement of the co-accused No.1-Dhanush, who is undisputedly the owner of the Malavalli Scanning Centre, petitioner could not have been dragged into the impugned proceedings without there being any corroborative material in this regard and

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:4836 CRL.P No. 5800 of 2023

¶48

consequently in the light of the order passed under identical circumstances in relation to accused No.4 in Crl.P.No.1546/2023 supra the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner-accused No.3 also deserves to be quashed.

¶49

8. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i. Petition is hereby allowed .

¶52

ii. Impugned proceedings in

¶53

C.C.No.2095/2022 on the file of I Additional Civil

¶54

Judge and JMFC, Malavalli is hereby quashed qua the petitioner-accused No.3.