[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Dr Manjula Gowda vs The State Through The Public Prosecutor on 25 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1868
CRL.P No. 201630 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 201629 of 2025
CRL.P No. 201633 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201630 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201629 OF 2025
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201633 OF 2025
IN CRL.P No. 201630/2025
BETWEEN:
DR MANJULA GOWDA
W/O DR S.B. BHADRANNAVAR
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: OWNER
OF ITAGI CLINIC DEVADDURGA
R/O ITAGI CLINIC, APMC
BESIDES NEW BUS-STAND
Digitally signed by DEVADURGA, DIST: RAICHUR.
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA UDAGI ...PETITIONER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. SHIVANAND PATIL., ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE STATE, TOWN P/S DEODURGA
THROUGH
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
KALABURGI-585107
2. THE DIST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY
(DAA)-PC AND PNDT CUM DEPUTY
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1868
CRL.P No. 201630 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 201629 of 2025
CRL.P No. 201633 of 2025
HC-KAR
COMMISSIONER, RAICHUR-584101
REPRESENTED BY DELEGATED
APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY
PC AND PNDT ACT
BY SRI. DR SHIVAKUMAR
S/O VEERABHADRAPPA
AGE: 53 YEARSS, OCC: DIST
FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER,
DHO OFFICE, RAICHUR-585401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR ADV., FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 528 OF BNSS, U/SEC 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C NO.
637/2025 (ARISING OUT OF PC NO.35/2025) OF THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC 23 OF
P.C AND P.N.D.T ACT 1994 AND RULES FOR VIOLATION OF
THE SEC. 20(3), 29 AND 6 OF P.C AND P.N.D.T ACT 1994 AND
RULES 3(B)(1),(a) AND 2(c), (d) AND RULE 9(4),(5) AND (6)
PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC DEVADURGA
AND ALSO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THE HONOURABLE
COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE.
BETWEEN:
DR SHEELA SAGARAD
W/O DR. SURESH SAGARAD
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR
R/O SGARAD MEDICAL CENTER
LINGASUGUR ROAD
NEAR CANARA BANK, RAICHUR
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVANAND PATIL AND
SRI. VARUN PATIL, ADVOCATES)
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1868
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE, SADAR BAZAR
P/S RAICHUR
THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
KALABURGI-585107
2. THE DIST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY
(DAA)-PC AND PNDT CUM DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, RAICHUR
REPRESENTED BY DELEGATED
APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY
PC AND PNDT ACT
BY SRI. DR SHIVAKUMAR
S/O VEERABHADRAPPA
AGE: 53 YEARSS, OCC: DIST
FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER,
DHO OFFICE, RAICHUR-585401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR ADV., FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD),
U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
PETITION AND QUASH PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS IN CC NO.2816/2025 (P.C.NO.141/2025) OF
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC II AT RAICHUR FOR OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 23 OF P.C. AND P.N.D.T ACT AND
RULES AND ALSO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THE
HONOURABLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
BETWEEN:
DR MALLIKARJUNA
S/O MALLANGOWDA
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1868
HC-KAR
AGE 40 YEARS
OCC: RADIOLOGIST CENTRE
NEAR GUNJ CIRCLE, SIYATALAB
RAICHUR
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVANAND PATIL AND
SRI. VARUN PATIL, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE, SADAR BAZAR
P/S RAICHUR
THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
KALABURGI-585107
2. THE DIST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY
(DAA)-PC AND PNDT CUM DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, RAICHUR
REPRESENTED BY DELEGATED
APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY
PC AND PNDT ACT
BY SRI. DR SHIVAKUMAR
S/O VEERABHADRAPPA
AGE: 53 YEARSS, OCC: DIST
FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER,
DHO OFFICE, RAICHUR-585401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR ADV., FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 528 OF BNSS, U/SEC 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C NO.
1716/2025 (P.C NO. 30/2025) OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 2
PENDING ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
AND PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT RAICHUR, FOR
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC 23 OF P.C AND P.N.D.T ACT
1994 AND RULES FOR VIOLATION OF SEC .6(C), 29 OF P.C
AND P.N.D.T ACT 1994 AND P.C AND P.N.D.T RULES
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1868
HC-KAR
9(1),(4), (5), (6) (7) AND (8) AND ALSO GRANT SUCH
OTHER RELIEFS AS THE HONOURABLE COURT DEEMS FIT
IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CAV ORDER
These three petitions are filed under Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners/accused in
C.C.No.637/2025 (arising out of P.C No.35/2025),
C.C.No.2816/2025 (arising out of P.C No.141/2025) and
C.C.No.1716/2025 (arising out of P.C No.30/2025) for the
offences punishable under Sections 23, 20(3), 29 and 6(c) of
Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition
of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (for brevity, "PC and PNDT Act")
and Rule 3(B)(1)A, 2(c)D and 9(1)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) of PC and
PCT Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques
(Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (for brevity, "PC and
PNDT Rules"), pending before the Trial Courts.
2. The abridged facts of the case are, respondent
No.2-District Appropriate Authority (DAA)-PC and PNDT cum
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1868
HC-KAR
Deputy Commissioner, Raichur, delegated by appropriate
Authority, PC and PNDT Act, filed the private complaint alleging
contravention of the provisions of PC and PNDT Act and the
Rules framed there under contending that, when respondent
No.2 with his officials visited the respective Diagnostics Centers
of the petitioners on 06.05.2025 and 07.05.2025, on enquiry
they found several lapse and violations in maintenance and
preservation of mandatory records i.e., referral slips, bill
receipts, Ante-Natal Care (ANC) register, sonography images,
sonography reports, monthly reports, incomplete Form-F
Documentation etc. Accordingly, panchanamas were drawn and
scanning machines were seized and subsequently, respondent
No.2 filed complaint before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and
CJM, Raichur, (for brevity "Trial Court") in P.C.No.30/2025
against Dr.Mallikarjuna i.e., petitioner in
Crl.P.No.201633/2025, P.C.No.141/2025 against Dr.Sheela
Sagarad i.e., petitioner in Crl.P.No.201629/2025, before the
Principal Civil Judge and JMFC-II, Raichur (for brevity "Trial
Court") on 29.05.2025 and P.C.No.35/2025 against Dr.Manjula
Gowda i.e., petitioner in Crl.P.No.201630/2025, before the Civil
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1868
HC-KAR
Judge and JMFC, Devadurga (for brevity "Trial Court") on
02.06.2025 for the aforementioned offences.
3. Based on the said private complaints, the Trial
Courts took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to
the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners
preferred these petitions to quash the proceedings against
them.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
HCGP for respondent No.1-State and learned Special Counsel
for respondent No.2 in all the petitions.
5. The primary contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioners is, the petitioners neither served with any
notices nor heard in the matters before registering the case
against them by respondent No.2. The same violates the
principles of natural justice and contrary to Section 20 of the PC
and PNDT Act, consequently, the proceedings vitiates. He also
contended that the power of seizure and suspension of
functioning of the Diagnostic Centers to be used sparingly in
exceptional circumstances and not in the case of curable
procedural lapses. According to him, the object and scheme of
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1868
HC-KAR
PC and PNDT Act and its provisions relating to any omission
and commission in compliance of the Act and Rules, the
appropriate Authority must seek explanation of the defaulter to
find out if there is any criminal intent. In the event there being
no criminal intent and lapses were mere procedural,
compliances of such lapses ought to have been ordered before
resorting to prosecution. He also contended that, the seizure of
equipments must be done in the presence of two independent
witnesses as per Rule 12 of the PC and PNDT Rules, but in the
instant case, the said rule is not followed. With these
submissions, he prays to allow the petition. In order to buttress
his argument, he relied on the following judgments:
i. B. Gopala Krishna vs. District Commissioner and
District Appropriate Authority (DAA) Bengaluru
reported in AIR Online 2024 KAR 1587;
ii. Crl.P.No.3002/2024 - Smt. Subhalakshmi and
Another vs. The State by District Appropriate
Authority (DAA) and Another;
iii. W.P.No.200185/2018 c/w W.P.No.200186/2018
and W.P.No.200187/2018 - Dr. Mallangouda vs.
The State of District Appropriate Authority
(DAA) and Another;
iv. W.P.No.23644/2024 - Dr. Murali vs. The State
by District Health and Family Welfare and
Others.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1868
HC-KAR
6. Per contra, learned Special counsel for respondent
No.2 contended that these petitions are not maintainable in
view of Section 21 of the PC and PNDT Act, which provides
alternative remedy for the petitioners to approach the State
Appropriate Authority for any action taken by respondent No.2.
He alternatively contended that these petitions are also liable to
be dismissed on merits because, despite respondent No.2
issuing notices to the petitioners under Section 20 of the PC
and PNDT Act in the year 2023 itself and having received the
notices, the petitioners without replying or complying the said
notices, continued multiple violations, irregularities and
illegalities in the Diagnostic Centers. Left with no other option,
respondent No.2 inspected the premises and seized the
equipments and filed the private complaints against the
petitioners as per Section 23 of PC and PNDT Act.
7. He further contended that, respondent No.2
followed the procedure contemplated under Rule 30 of PC and
PNDT Rules and seized the equipments by conducting seizure
panchanama. He also contended that, the petitioners have not
only committed curable procedural lapse but also mandatory
provisions. He placed the registration details of the Diagnostic
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1868
HC-KAR
Centers along with the other documents seized by respondent
No.2, at the time of drawing seizure panchanama and submit
that the act committed by the petitioners squarely comes
within the ambit of offences prosecuted against them. With
these submissions, he prays to dismiss the petition. To buttress
his arguments, he relied on the following judgments:
i. W.P. (Civil) No.129/2017 - Federation of
Obstetrics and Gynecolgical Societies of India
vs. Union of India;
ii. DAA under PNDT Act and Chief District Health
Officer vs. Jashmina Dilip Devda and Another in
SLP No.17973/2015;
iii. W.P. (Civil) No.349/2006 - Voluntary Health
Association of Punjab vs. Union of India and
Others.
8. I have given my anxious consideration both on the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective
parties and documents made available on record.
9. Before delving into the merits of the case, it is
apposite to examine Section 20 of the PC and PNDT Act, which
reads as under:
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1868
HC-KAR
"20. Cancellation or suspension of
registration.--
(1)The Appropriate Authority may suo moto,
or on complaint, issue a notice to the Genetic
Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic
Clinic to show cause why its registration should not
be suspended or cancelled for the reasons
mentioned in the notice.
(2)If, after giving a reasonable opportunity of
being heard to the Genetic Counselling Centre,
Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic and having
regard to the advice of the Advisory Committee,
the Appropriate Authority is satisfied that there has
been a breach of the provisions of this Act or the
rules, it may, without prejudice to any criminal
action that it may take against such Centre,
Laboratory or Clinic, suspend its registration for
such period as it may think fit or cancel its
registration, as the case may be.
(3)Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-sections (1) and (2), if the Appropriate
Authority is of the opinion that it is necessary or
expedient so to do in the public interest, it may, for
reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend the
registration of any Genetic Counselling Centre,
Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic without issuing
any such notice referred to in sub-section (1)."
10. On bare reading of the above provision it is clear
that before filing complaint or initiating action for the breach of
provisions of PC and PNDT Act or PC and PNDT Rules, the
Authority has to issue a notice to the Centers to show cause
why its registration should not be suspended or cancelled and
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1868
HC-KAR
an opportunity has to be extended of being heard to the
Centers before the advisory or appropriate committee. In the
instant case, learned counsel for respondent No.2 placed the
notices issued to the petitioners in respect of violations of the
Act and Rules committed by them in the year 2023 itself with a
direction them to give show cause within 3 days from the date
of receiving the said notices. However, the petitioners neither
replied the said notices nor appeared before the District
Appropriate Authority of PC and PNDT, Raichur. Finally on
14.05.2025, proceedings conveyed in the ADD of PC and PNDT
Committee and it is decided to launch prosecution by filing
private complaint. As such, the contention of learned counsel
for the petitioners that these private complaints are not
maintainable for non-compliance of Section 20 of the PC and
PNDT Act, does not hold much water. Further, the judgments
of the Co-ordinate bench of this Court relied by the learned
counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the facts and
circumstance of these case, in view of the compliance of
Section 20 of the PC and PNDT Act and Rules.
11. The other contention raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioners that, Section 12 of the Act is not complied
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1868
HC-KAR
with since no independent witness was present at the time of
seizure panchanama is also factually incorrect, since the spot
panchanama depicts, there are five panch witnesses to the
seizure panchanama and among them, one is helper and other
is the receptionist of the Center. These witnesses cannot be
termed as official witness, as claimed by the learned counsel
for the petitioners.
12. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 by placing
reliance on the violations committed by the petitioners
contended that, during the inspection, the team of respondent
No.2 found Wipro GE Portable machine Logiq V2, Serial
No.603073WXO in the centers of the petitioners, which is
prohibited machine as per the PC and PNDT Act. The team also
found several patients details whose "F-Form" was missing,
which is mandatory to be maintained by the Center. According
to the learned counsel, "F-Forms" of various months for 2 years
were missing as per records found in the register.
Nevertheless, in the private complaint it is stated that, a
calendar was found prominently displayed within the premises
of sonograhpy depicting symbols and imagery that could
potential suggest or indicate the sex of foetus. Consequently,
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1868
HC-KAR
the same indirectly encourage or facilitate sex-selective
practice, which are expressly prohibited under PC and PNDT
Act. In such circumstance, prima facie the documents placed by
the learned counsel for respondent No.2 reveals that, there are
multiple violations and irregularities committed by the
petitioners in their respective centers.
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the
irregularities committed under PC and PNDT Act, held in the
above judgments relied by the learned counsel for respondent
No.2 that, the power under Sub-Section 20(3) of PC and PNDT
Act is intermittent and addition to the power of Sub-section 2 of
PC and PNDT Act, but it may be exercised sparingly in
exceptional circumstance in public interest.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that, the way
in which the non-maintenance of record can be used for
violating the provisions of PC and PNDT Act. The non-filing of
information in respect of F-Form cannot be termed to be
clerical error; it would definitely a blatant and intentional
violation of the provisions of PC and PNDT Act. In such
circumstance, the whole some social legislation would be
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1868
HC-KAR
defeated in case 'Form' is not filled, which is sine qua non toto
under tests/procedures. If such conditions do not exist, no such
procedure can be performed and diluting the provisions would
be against the gender justice.
15. From the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
above judgments, it is clear that the violation of basic
fundamental requisite of PC and PNDT Act, amounts to
dishonest, fraudulent and can be termed intentional one and
such case cannot be classified into clerical errors. Further, it is
not possible to term action as merely a clerical one as that is
prerequisite for the tests/procedure and that is what is
intended by the Act, if it is given a go bye under the guise of
clerical error, the Act would be rendered otiose. Restriction
cannot be said to be excessive and beyond what is required in
the pubic interest, they cater to the felt need of the society and
the complex issue facing people, which the legislature intends
to solve.
16. Collocating the above findings of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the above judgments, to the facts and circumstance of
these cases, as discussed supra, there are multiple violations
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1868
HC-KAR
committed by the petitioners in the Center despite issuing
notices to them by the Authority in the year 2023 itself, more
particularly maintaining incomplete Form-F documentation and
ANC register and operating machine Wipro GE Portable machine
Logiq V2, Serial No.603073WXO, which is prohibited machine
as per PC and PNDT Act, cannot be termed as procedural lapse,
as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In such
circumstance, the allegations made in the private complaint
and the document placed by respondent No.2 has to be tested
in a detailed trial and the proceedings cannot be quashed at
this stage. Accordingly, these petitions lack merits and the
same are dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
HKV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
CT-BH
