The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed petitions seeking quashing of a criminal complaint under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, holding that even if the underlying inspection was authorised by an individual officer rather than the collective three-member District Appropriate Authority, this does not automatically vitiate a complaint separately deliberated upon and sanctioned by the statutory Authority, nor render the recovered material unusable.

Justice Manisha Batra said, "this Court is not required to determine whether every alleged deficiency is ultimately proved. Nor is this Court required to decide whether a particular omission was deliberate, inadvertent or clerical. Those are questions which necessarily depend upon evidence. What is material for the present purpose is that the complaint contains specific allegations which, if proved, may attract the statutory provisions invoked against the petitioners. The argument that the earlier inspection dated 11.12.2013 allegedly found the centre to be functioning properly also cannot lead to quashing of the present complaint. A previous inspection cannot confer immunity against subsequent violations. Compliance on one date does not logically exclude violation on a later date. Whether the circumstances noticed on 20.01.2014 were genuine or whether they were correctly recorded is a matter for trial."

The case arose from a surprise inspection conducted in 2014 at M/s Shri Balaji Imaging & Pathology Centre Pvt. Ltd., Bahadurgarh, registered under the PC&PNDT Act for ultrasound examinations. The inspection team, headed by the Nodal Officer, found petitioner Renu Deswal (Director) present, while Dr. Mahesh Chander Mishra was absent. The team found 479 ultrasounds recorded on the machine but alleged Deswal failed to produce two years' records as mandated, and detected multiple deficiencies in the register and 40 Form-Fs/referral slips, missing signatures, incomplete patient/spouse details, absence of page numbering, and instances where ultrasound reports were signed by Dr. Mishra despite being allegedly conducted by petitioner Dr. Vinit Gupta.

The centre's registration was suspended, and a complaint under Section 28 of the Act was filed. An earlier summoning order was set aside by the revisional court for inadequate reasoning and remitted; a fresh summoning order was passed on 19.03.2021, which the petitioners challenged.

Counsel for the petitioners argued that the complaint was invalid since it was filed by the Deputy Civil Surgeon-cum-Nodal Officer without demonstrated authorisation from the three-member District Appropriate Authority, relying on this Court's ruling in Dr. Anil Bansal v. District Appropriate Authority, Gurugram. It was further argued that the search itself, conducted on the basis of "secret information" without a recorded collective decision of the Authority, violated Section 30 of the Act, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2024 INSC 684, and that consequently all material collected, including the ultrasound records and Form-Fs — could not sustain the prosecution. It was also argued that no independent witnesses were joined during the search, and that Dr. Vinit Gupta, having resigned from the centre on 31.10.2013 (before the 20.01.2014 inspection), could not be held responsible for any violations found.

The State, defending the complaint, argued that the prosecution decision was deliberated upon by the District Advisory Committee and the three-member District Appropriate Authority, which then authorised Dr. Raj Karan to institute the complaint, bringing it within the officer-authorisation route under Section 28(1)(a), as recognised in State of M.P. v. Manvinder Singh Gill and this Court's own ruling in Dr. Preetinder Kaur v. State of Punjab.

Crucially, the State relied on the Supreme Court's subsequent ruling in Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg v. State of Haryana, 2026 (2) SCC (Cri) 177, to argue that even an illegally-authorised search does not automatically render the complaint or the collected material unusable, since legality of search and admissibility of evidence are distinct questions. On Dr. Vinit Gupta, the State pointed to ultrasound reports dated 21.11.2013, after his claimed resignation — allegedly showing he had conducted the procedures despite bearing Dr. Mishra's signature.

 The Court held Section 28(1)(a) expressly permits an officer authorised by the Appropriate Authority to file a complaint, and that the question is not whether all three members signed the complaint, but whether the complainant was validly authorised. Since the State had specifically pleaded on affidavit that the District Appropriate Authority deliberated and authorised Dr. Raj Karan, and the petitioners produced nothing to rebut this, the Court held: "the Court cannot proceed on a mere presumption that the complainant lacked authority."

Applying Ravinder Kumar, the Court acknowledged that a search under Section 30 authorised by an individual member of a multi-member Appropriate Authority, without a collective decision, would be illegal. However, relying on the subsequent Supreme Court ruling in Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg, the Court held that this illegality does not automatically destroy the complaint or render collected material non-existent:

"The Hon'ble Supreme Court expressly distinguished between the legality of the search and the relevancy and admissibility of the material collected during the search. It was held that even where the search is illegal, the material or evidence collected in the course of such search cannot automatically be treated as non-existent."

The Court emphasised the complaint's core allegations concerned deficiencies in statutorily-mandated records (registers, Form-Fs, referral slips) rather than merely the physical entry into the premises, and that the Authority had itself subsequently deliberated on and authorised prosecution — distinguishing this from a case founded solely on an individually-authorised search with no other material.

Relying on Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, 1988, the Court held that non-joining of independent witnesses, where locals were requested but declined to participate, does not by itself demolish the prosecution case and remains a matter for evidentiary appreciation at trial.

Referring to Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI) v. Union of India, (2019) , holding complete Form-F compliance to be mandatory and non-maintenance not a mere clerical lapse, the Court found the complaint's specific and multiple allegations of incomplete/unsigned Form-Fs and register deficiencies sufficient to disclose a prima facie offence, further noting that a satisfactory earlier inspection (11.12.2013) could not immunise against later violations.

On Dr. Vinit Gupta's resignation defence, the Court held this could not be accepted conclusively at the Section 482 stage, since the State specifically relied on ultrasound reports dated after his claimed resignation date allegedly showing him as the doctor who conducted the procedures, and Section 23 extends liability beyond the owner to any person rendering professional/technical services at the centre , making this "a question of fact" not suited for determination in quashing proceedings.

Dismissing both petitions, the Court held that the allegations, taken at face value, were not "so absurd or inherently improbable" as to warrant quashing, and that the PC&PNDT Act's integrated statutory mechanism, the Appropriate Authority, Advisory Committee, cognizance provisions, and record-keeping requirements, should not be diluted through an overly broad application of search-illegality principles.

Mr. Ravinder Rana, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-5955-2022.

Mr. Amitabh Tewari, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-65066-2023.

Mr. Apoorv Garg, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

Title: Renu Deswal v. State of Haryana and others

Click here to read order