Gujarat High Court: In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, for quashing of a criminal case instituted under Section 23 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act), the Single Judge Bench of J.C. Joshi, J*, held that the use of a doppler device to monitor heartbeat of the foetus does not amount to ‘pre-natal diagnostic procedure’ as defined in the PCPNDT Act. Accordingly, the Court quashed and set aside the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
The petitioner was a licensed BHMS practitioner and the proprietor of a hospital. He was alleged to have conducted pre-natal diagnostics and procedures covered under the ambit of Sections 3 and 26 of the PCPNDT Act read with Rule 3(3)(1) of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996.
The petitioner had contended that he was merely examining a pregnant female patient in the clinical room while the sonography machine was found switched on in an adjacent room. It was averred that the petitioner was not performing any sonographic examination or pre-natal diagnostic test at the relevant time.
The Court referred to Sections 2 (i), (j) and (k) of the PCPNDT Act which define pre-natal diagnostic procedures and pre-natal diagnostic tests, and noted that to bring the accused within the four corners of Section 3 of the PCPNDT Act, it was incumbent upon the Appropriate Authority or the complainant to prima facie establish that the diagnostic procedures, tests or techniques enumerated under the Act were actually conducted or attempted at the time of inspection of the hospital premises.
The Court stated that it was not alleged by the Appropriate Authority that the petitioner had unauthorizedly operated the sonography machine or that he conducted any pre-natal diagnostic procedure, test, or technique as defined under Section 2(j), 2(i), 2(k) of the PCPNDT Act. The Court noted that as per the petitioner’s statement, as obtained by the Appropriate Authority, had merely used a Doppler device to monitor the foetal heartbeat which did not fall within the ambit of ‘pre-natal diagnostic procedures’ as defined under the PCPNDT Act.
Thereafter, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
[Devayatbhai Masribhai Chopda v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine Guj 2594, decided on 3-7-2025]
Order by- Justice J.C. Joshi
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Aditya A Choksi, Advocate
For the Respondents: Chintan Dave (APP), Nikhilesh J Shah, Advocate
