Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. The Court categorically held that "registration of FIR under PC & PNDT Act is not barred under law" and refused to interfere with the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners. The Court further confirmed that the Appropriate Authority had the jurisdiction to conduct inspections and initiate the complaint, thereby rendering the petitioners' jurisdictional challenge unsustainable. The writ petition was consequently dismissed along with all pending applications.

The matter pertained to the petitioners, Dr. Randhawa Ultrasonography Imaging and Research Institute, Dr. J.S. Randhawa, and Dr. Sonal Randhawa, who sought quashing of FIR No. 0566/2017 registered under Sections 25, 26, and 27 of the PC & PNDT Act at Police Station Hari Nagar, Delhi. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Also Read: Supreme Court Issues Directions For Regularisation Of Court Managers | Directs All High Courts To Frame Rules On Recruitment And Service Conditions Within Three Months

Petitioner No.1, the Institute, stated that it was established in the year 2000 and had trained approximately 4,000 doctors over 17 years in ultrasonography and imaging without receiving any prior complaints. The Institute claimed to be recognized by M/s Jefferson Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, and adhered to the highest standards in ultrasonography.

The core allegations arose from an inspection conducted by officials from the Office of the District Magistrate (West District) on December 21, 2017. The inspection team, despite protestations regarding jurisdiction, forcibly conducted a five-hour inspection, allegedly seized documents without issuing a seizure memo, and took away the CCTV DVR to suppress evidence of the alleged irregularities.

The inspection noted several violations, including:

1. Improper display of notice boards regarding the ban on pre-natal sex determination.

2. Unauthorized usage of ultrasound machine SONO SCAPE S50 without approval.

3. Missing ultrasonography reports and thermal films from Form F records.

4. Operating an ultrasound training center without required approvals.

5. Absence of approval under Rule 7(1) of PC & PNDT Six-Month Training Rules, 2014.

6. Admission of students without adhering to prescribed criteria.

7. Non-intimation regarding doctors using the ultrasonography machines.

The petitioners challenged the inspection, claiming it was unauthorized, conducted without independent witnesses, and lacked legal compliance. They also argued that the Appropriate Authority was the District Magistrate of South-West District since September 26, 2016, not the West District.

On December 22, 2017, the Respondent Authority issued an order suspending the Institute's registration and a show-cause notice, demanding a reply within seven days. The petitioners alleged that these actions were taken with malafide intent to harass and ruin the Institute's reputation.

Subsequently, FIR No. 0566/2017 was registered based on the findings of the inspection. The petitioners contended that the FIR was invalid as it was initiated by an Authority lacking jurisdiction and without proper inquiry. They further submitted that no direct allegations of sex determination or violation of the PC & PNDT Act's core objectives were made.

The petitioners pursued multiple legal remedies, including filing Writ Petitions and appeals before the State and Central Appellate Authorities. All appellate proceedings upheld the actions of the District Magistrate, West District, affirming that the Institute's location fell within its jurisdiction.

The petitioners received notice under Section 41A of the CrPC and participated in the investigation. Despite these proceedings, the petitioners maintained that the inspection was irregular, the FIR was unwarranted, and the allegations were civil in nature rather than criminal.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna recorded that the central question was whether the District Magistrate, West District, was the Competent Authority. The Court observed, "Though inadvertently the Files were transferred to District Appropriate Authority, South-West in 2016, but actually as per the Notification of NCT of Delhi, this sub-division Colony never got transferred to South-West District."

The Court further recorded, "As soon as this anomaly was noticed, the Files were recalled by DAA, West and consequently, the inspections had been done with due Authority. Merely because there was inadvertent transfer of the files would not make DAA, South-West as the Competent Authority."

On the issue of FIR registration under the PC & PNDT Act, the Court observed, "From the harmonious reading of the provisions of PC & PNDT Act, which make the offences as cognizable and non-bailable along with the provisions of CrPC, it cannot be said that no FIR can be registered or that the registration of FIR is barred under PC & PNDT Act."

Further, the Court elaborated, "Rule 18A(3)(iv) of PC & PNDT Act provides that as far as possible, Police being not involved for investigating cases under the Act, which again implies that the investigations by the Police, are not completely ousted. The Act also envisages investigations by the Police, if so required."

Citing precedents, the Court referred to the judgment in Manoj Krishan Ahuja v. State of NCT of Delhi, where it was held that Section 28 of the Act does not bar registration of FIR or investigation by police.

It was further recorded, "Section 28 makes it abundantly evident that a Complaint before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, can be initiated either by Appropriate Authority or Central Government or State Government, which may authorise an Officer other than the Appropriate Authority to file a Complaint on its behalf."

Also Read: Kerala High Court Upholds College Principal’s Appointment | Public Information Officer Not Bound To Investigate Under Section 7 Of RTI Act | Isolated Negligence Cannot Defeat Valid Selection

Justice Krishna concluded, "In the present case, cognizance has been taken neither on the FIR nor on the Charge-Sheet, but on the Complaint filed separately by District Appropriate Authority. The Report under Section 173 CrPC is only a part of investigation as the initial Search, Seizure, etc. was carried out by the DAA."

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna directed, "In the light of aforesaid discussion, the Petition is hereby dismissed, along with pending Application(s), if any."

The Court clarified that all issues raised by the petitioners pertaining to the validity of the inspection, jurisdiction of the Authority, and legality of the FIR are subject to the criminal trial proceedings and cannot be addressed at the stage of quashing. The Court recorded, "The contention of the Petitioners on merits is a subject matter of the trial and cannot be considered for quashing of the Complaint at the initial stage."

The writ petition was consequently dismissed, and the ongoing criminal proceedings were permitted to continue in accordance with law.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Percival Billimoria, Senior Advocate with Mr. Khowaja Siddiqui, Mr. Tushar Bathija, Mr. Jay Singh, Ms. Shilpa Ohri, Mr. Aswini Kumar, Ms. Rachita Sood, and Mr. Arbaz Khan, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, Additional Standing Counsel (Crl.), Mr. Alok Sharma, and Mr. Amit Sahni, Advocates with SI Mukesh Yadav, PS Hari Nagar.

Case Title: Dr. Randhawa Ultrasonography Imaging and Research Institute & Others v. State of NCT Delhi & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:3896

Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 1583/2021

Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

[Read/Download order]