Case Name: DR. NARESH HUMAR GARG VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
Petition Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 5915 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 INSC 176
Date of Judgement: 23.02.2026
Coram: JUSTICE MANOJ MISHRA & JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN.
Background:
This case arose from proceedings initiated under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. The appellant is a qualified radiologist working at a diagnostic centre in Gurugram. He approached the Supreme Court after the Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him under the PCPNDT Act.
Facts:
On September 17, 2015, the Chairman of the District Appropriate Authority-cum-Civil Surgeon, Gurugram received a complaint from a lady named Smt. Rajni. She stated that a person called Dr. Abdul Kadir was running an illegal sex-determination racket at Geetanjali Hospital in Badshahpur. Acting upon this complaint, a team was formed to conduct a “sting operation” using a decoy pregnant patient. A shadow witness contacted the doctor, who allegedly demanded Rs. 25,000 for conducting the sex determination. He then took the patient to Vatika Medicare, where Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg conducted an ultrasound without taking written consent and maintaining mandatory records, such as Form F, or making entries in the hospital register. The raiding team then intervened and recovered the marked currency from Dr. Kadir.
During the police investigation, no evidence was found implying that Dr. Garg had disclosed the sex of the foetus. The trial court discharged him in 2015. Three years later, the District Appropriate Authority filed a complaint against Dr. Garg under the PCPNDT Act for record-keeping violations. The magistrate took cognizance and summoned him. His attempt to get the complaint quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C was rejected by the High Court. Then, he approached the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Whether the search authorised by only the Chairperson of the three-member District Appropriate Authority is legal under Section 30 of the PCPNDT Act?
- Whether the alleged procedural defects would invalidate the evidence collected during the search?
- Whether a subsequent complaint could be filed focused on record-keeping violations even after the appellant had already been discharged in the FIR case for illegal sex-determination?
Arguments by the Parties:
Appellant:
Dr. Garg argued that the entire raid was void ab initio. The search was solely authorised by the Civil Surgeon, whereas Section 30 of the Act mandates a collective decision by all three members of the DAA. A previous Supreme Court judgment was relied upon which held that such unilateral action makes the search invalid. Since the search was illegal, any evidence collected during that must be excluded.
He contended that he had already been discharged in the FIR case based on the same incident. Initiating a fresh complaint for record-keeping violations was unfair and amounted to harassment. The only accusation was improper maintenance of records which should not be treated as a serious criminal offence.
Respondents:
The State emphasised that the PCPNDT Act is a social welfare legislation where procedural technicalities should not override the objective of preventing female foeticide. Even if there were procedural irregularities in the raid, the complaint filed by the District Appropriate Authority was independent and valid under Section 28 of the Act. It was contended that maintenance of Form F and other records is a standalone statutory offence. Proper documentation is important for preventing misuse of ultrasound technology.
Judgement and Analysis:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and allowed the prosecution to continue.
The court agreed that under Section 30, the decision to conduct a search must be taken collectively by the District Appropriate Authority. Hence, the search was legally defective in light of the principle laid down in the Ravindra Kumar case. But this did not automatically end the matter. After the police discharge, the District Advisory Committee had independently recommended filing a complaint. The Act requires cognizance to be taken only on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority. Hence, the statutory complaint was distinct from the police FIR proceedings.
The Court emphasised that non-maintenance of Form F and statutory records is a distinct offense under Section 23. The discharge in the FIR pertained to the act of sex determination, whereas the complaint concerned the failure to maintain records that the police have no authority to investigate under the Act. The Court held that relevancy is the primary test for admissibility. Evidence obtained through an illegal search remains admissible unless there is an express statutory prohibition.
Conclusion:
The judgment reinforces two key principles:
- Search and seizure powers must be exercised strictly as per law.
- Record maintenance under the PCPNDT Act is mandatory and central to its purpose.
Hence, the court reaffirmed that statutory authorities must follow the law strictly and it also recognised the importance of the PCPNDT Act in addressing a deep-rooted social issue.
