Allowed¶45

Puttaraju M.N. v. the District Appropriate Authority

Karnataka HC20 Mar 2025CRL.P/7958/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of PC&PNDT Act prosecution (Ss.23(1), 23(2), 20(1), 20(2), 20(3)) against accused Nos.5 and 7 alleged to be 'agents' who referred pregnant women for sex determination — bald and vague allegations held insufficient to continue criminal proceedings under S.482 Cr.PC (528 BNSS); Karnataka High Court; decoy operation, Malavalli Diagnostic Center, Mandya; petitioners absent at inspection and not lab employees; parity with quashing of co-accused Nos.3 and 4 (Crl.P Nos.5800/2023, 1546/2023); maintainability/notification-under-S.17(2) point expressly left open; C.C.No.2095/2022, I Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC Malavalli.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.5 and 7 in C.C.No.2095/2022 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Malavalli are quashed. ¶45

Puttaraju M.N. Vs the District Appropriate Authority — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.5 and 7 in C.C.No.2095/2022 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Malavalli are quashed.

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the complaint in C.C.No.2095/2022 discloses any material against the petitioners (accused Nos.5 and 7), arraigned only as agents who referred/sent/brought pregnant women for selective sex determination, sufficient to continue the criminal proceedings under the PC&PNDT Act. +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

The entire perusal of the complaint does not indicate any material against the petitioners (accused Nos.5 and 7) except stating that accused Nos.5 to 8 are the agents (doctors and non-doctors) who referred/sent/brought the pregnant women for the selective sex determination.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

When inspection was conducted, the petitioners were admittedly not present at the spot, and the petitioners are not employees of the lab in question.

¶37

Key takeaways

The bald and vague allegation in the complaint that the petitioners were agents who referred the pregnant women for selective sex determination is not sufficient to continue the criminal proceedings initiated against them.ratio¶37
The second contention of the petitioners (competency of the complainant / absence of notification under Section 17(2)) need not be gone into, as the Court finds there is no sufficient material against the petitioners to proceed against them; the point is thereby left unexamined.obiter¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No. 7958 of 2023 (under S.482 Cr.PC, annotated as 528(BNSS)) — Mohammad Nawaz J. allowed the petition of accused Nos.5 and 7 (Puttaraju M.N. and Mohankumar V.) and quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.2095/2022 before the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Malavalli, instituted on the complaint of the District Appropriate Authority (DAA)-PC & PNDT, Mandya (through Dr. Shashidhar K.R.) under Sections 23(1), 23(2), 20(1), 20(2) and 20(3) of the Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex-Selection Act) 1994, following a decoy operation at Malavalli Diagnostic Center. The Court held that the complaint disclosed no material against the petitioners beyond a bald and vague allegation that they, as agents, referred/sent/brought pregnant women for selective sex determination; they were absent during the inspection and were not employees of the lab. Co-accused Nos.3 and 4 had already obtained quashing in Crl.P Nos.5800/2023 and 1546/2023. The contention that only an authority/officer (with notification under S.17(2)) could file the complaint was left unexamined.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:11736 CRL.P No. 7958 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7958 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) /

¶6

528(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶9

PUTTARAJU M.N. S/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.65/27-1, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, AIRTEL TOWER, MANJUNATHANAGAR, TAVEREKERE, BENGALURU-562 130.

¶10

MOHANKUMAR V. S/O VENKATARAMU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.82, 14^TH MAIN, KALIDASA LAYOUT, SRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 050.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. B. RAMESH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE DISTRICT APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY (DAA)-P.C. AND P.N.D.T. DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICE MANDYA, REPRESENTED BY

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11736 CRL.P No. 7958 of 2023

¶16

DISTRICT NODAL OFFICER AND DISTRICT FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER, DR. SHASHIDHAR K.R.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYAM, HCGP)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2095/2022 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT MALAVALLI FOR TAKING COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 23(1), 23(2), 20(1), 20(2), 20(3) OF THE PRECONCEPTION AND PRE-NATAL DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES (PROHIBITION OF SEX - SELECTION ACT) 1994 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.5 AND 7 PURSUANT TO THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Petitioners have called in question the proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.2095/2022 on the file of the Court I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Malavalli, for

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11736 CRL.P No. 7958 of 2023

¶25

offences punishable under Section 23(1), 23(2), 20(1), 20(2) and 20(3) of the Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex-Selection Act) 1994 (for short ‘Act’).

¶26

In the private complaint filed by the District Appropriate Authority (DAA)-PC & PNDT, District Health and Family Welfare Office, Mandya represented by the District Nodal Officer and District Family Welfare Officer by name Dr.Shashidhar K.R, petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.5 and 7 respectively.

¶27

The complainant has stated that it is the duty of

¶28

the Appropriate Authority to implement the Act as per Section 17(4)(e) and take action against all bodies upon violation of the Act and also against the persons who have appointed/allowed a person to operate without a valid qualification as mentioned in the Act or involved in Sex Selection/determination of sex of the foetus and unauthorized communication of the same to anyone else,

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:11736 CRL.P No. 7958 of 2023

¶31

as they amount to violation of Section 3(2), 3A, 4, 5, 6, 29, 30 r/w Section 8 of the Act.

¶32

It is alleged, there was an information received regarding determination of foetal sex being done illegally at one Malavalli Diagnostic Center, Malavalli Town, Mandya District, as such a decoy operation was conducted and found that sex determination was being done in the said Diagnostic Center. Further, such a test was done in respect of two pregnant women and a total of 9 scans were conducted etc. Upon investigation, as it was allegedly found that there was easy availability of sex determination tests and illegal abortion services, the complainant proceeded to file a complaint against 8 accused persons.

¶33

The learned counsel for petitioners contended

¶34

that there is absolutely no material against the petitioners for having violated any of the provisions as alleged, except bald allegation that they are the agents who have referred or brought the pregnant women for selective sex

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11736 CRL.P No. 7958 of 2023

¶36

determination. His further contention is that only the appropriate authority or an authorized Officer can file a complaint and the complaint does not indicate that there was any notification issued under Section 17(2) of the Act.

¶37

The entire perusal of the complaint does not indicate any material against the petitioners, arraigned as accused Nos.5 and 7 except stating that accused Nos.5 to 8 are the agents (doctors and non-doctors) who referred/send/bring the pregnant women for the selective sex determination. Admittedly, when inspection was conducted, petitioners were not present at the spot. Petitioners are not the employees of the lab in question. The bald and vague allegation made in the complaint that they are the agents who have referred etc., the pregnant women for selective sex determination is not sufficient to continue the criminal proceedings initiated against them.

¶38

Accused Nos.3 and 4 preferred Crl.P No.5800/2023 and Crl.P No.1546/2023 before this Court for quashing of the proceedings. Both the petitions came

¶39

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11736 CRL.P No. 7958 of 2023

¶40

to be allowed and the proceedings against them are quashed by this Court, noting that there was no sufficient material against them to proceed with.

¶41

The second contention raised by the learned

¶42

counsel for petitioners need not be gone into as this Court finds that there are no sufficient material against the petitioners to proceed against them. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) Petition is allowed.

¶45

(ii) The proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.5 and 7 in C.C.No.2095/2022 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Malavalli are quashed.

¶46

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶47

HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 CT:ar

Puttaraju M.N. v. the District Appropriate Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puttaraju M.N. v. the District Appropriate Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. O R Kalpana Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Pawan Kumar T S Vs Smt Rashmi M

Mr. Sathish Kumar Shanmugam Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Narayan Mahadevrao Biradar Vs M/S Padmavathi Enterprises

Mr Syed Imran Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. South Gallery Marketing Vs M/S. Venkatgiri Trading