Allahabad High Court
Dr. Navneet Tyagi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135563 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (Sl. No.27) Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4079 of 2016 Applicant :- Dr. Navneet Tyagi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
Order on Crl. Misc. Restoration Application No. 4 of 2025
1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.K.Ojha, learned AGA-I for the State.
2. Cause shown for non-appearance of learned counsel for the applicant on 20.05.2025 is sufficient.
3. In view thereof, the instant restoration application is allowed and the Application under Sectin 482 No. 4079 of 2016 is restored to its original number.
Order on Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
4. Rejoinder Affidavit filed today is taken on record.
5. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 18.01.2016 as well as the entire proceeding of Case No. 90873 of 2015, under Section 25 of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex-Selection) Act, 1994 (in short 'PNDT Act,1996'), P.S. Ganga Nagar, District Meerut.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the record so far as the earlier violations of 2009 is concerned, the matter has already settled and no action was taken against the applicant herein and the earlier notices were already withdrawn. The only allegation against the applicant in the instant complaint case is that the applicant herein while issuing the ultrasound report has not given certificate as required under Sub-rule 3 of Rule-9 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (in short 'PCPNDT Rules of 1996') Learned counsel for the applicant has annexed as annexure-3, Form (F), which categorically contains a certificate as required as per Rule-9(3) of the Rules. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant submits that since there is sufficient compliance on the part of the applicant herein, therefore, the instant complaint against the applicant herein is not sustainable. Therefore, he seeks quashing of the entire proceeding of the instant complaint case.
7. Per contra, the State has filed the counter affidavit in the instant case and submits that since the applicant has failed to maintain the record as required under Rule-9 of the PCPNDT Rules of 1996, there is a violation under Section 25 of PNDT Act, 1994. Thus, learned AGA submits that the since a prima facie case of violation of the Rule is established, therefore, no interference is called for in the proceeding initiated against the applicant.
8. Having heard the rival submission so made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. The allegations as made in the instant case against the applicant, which relates to the report issued to Ms. Sonia wife of Pankaj, Hastinapur, Meerut in Form (F). When it is alleged that the same is in violation of Section 9 of PCPNDT Rules of 1996, thus punishable under Section 25 of the PCPNDT Rules of 1996. A copy of the Form (F) which is the basis of the instant prosecution against the applicant and is annexed as annexure-3 to the instant application. The correctness of the same has not been disputed in the counter affidavit filed by the State, which categorically contains a declaration of the applicant as is required as per Rule 9(3) of the PCPNDT Rules of 1996. The same also contains a declaration on the part of the patient that she does not want to know the sex of the foetus and similarly a declaration has been made by the doctor, the applicant herein that while conducting the ultrasonography / image scanning of Ms. Sonia that he has neither detected nor disclosed the sex of her foetus to anybody else in any manner.
9. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no violation on the part of the applicant herein of Rule 9(3) of the PCPNDT Rules of 1996 as is alleged against him.
10. In view thereof, the cause of action for filing the instant complaint does not survive in the present case.
11. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed and the proceedings of Case No. 90873 of 2015, under Section 25 of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex-Selection) Act, 1994 (in short 'PNDT Act,1996'), P.S. Ganga Nagar, District Meerut against the applicant, are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Ashish Pd.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)