Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Mere Continuation of Doctor’s Name on PCPNDT Registration Panel Does Not Create Criminal Liability Without Active Participation in Illegal Sex Determination; Discharge Restored

Case Name: Dr. Shyam Bihari v. State of Haryana

Date of Judgment: 03 July 2026

Citation: CRR-3912-2018

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor.

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a medical practitioner cannot be prosecuted under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 merely because his name continued to appear on the registration panel of a diagnostic centre where an illegal prenatal sex determination raid was conducted. Criminal liability under the PCPNDT Act and the Indian Penal Code requires prima facie material demonstrating active participation, physical presence, or involvement in a criminal conspiracy. Mere administrative failure to remove the doctor’s name from the clinic’s registration records, without evidence linking him to the offence, cannot justify criminal prosecution. The Court further held that Rule 3(3)(3) of the PCPNDT Rules, 1996 restricts registration only within the same district and, in any event, its operation had already been stayed by various High Courts, rendering the revisional court’s reliance upon alleged dual registration legally unsustainable.

Summary: The revision petition challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, which had set aside the petitioner’s discharge and directed the trial court to reconsider the question of framing charges under the PCPNDT Act and the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case arose from a decoy operation conducted at Janta Diagnostic Centre, Hansi, where marked currency was allegedly recovered following illegal prenatal sex determination. Although the petitioner had once been associated with the diagnostic centre, the FIR did not name him, he was not present during the raid, and the ultrasound report as well as Form ‘F’ identified another registered radiologist, Dr. Sudhir Kumar Dhusia, as the person conducting the procedure. The investigation further established that the petitioner had left the diagnostic centre in 2012 and was employed as a consultant radiologist at Civil Hospital, Gurgaon, on the date of the raid, a fact corroborated by attendance records and registration documents. The revisional court nevertheless revived the prosecution solely because the petitioner’s name continued to appear on the registration panel of the diagnostic centre and because he was allegedly registered at two diagnostic centres. The High Court rejected this reasoning, holding that Rule 3(3)(3) of the PCPNDT Rules merely restricts registration to a maximum of two clinics within the same district and does not prohibit registration in different districts. The Court further noted that the operation of Rule 3(3)(3) had been stayed by several High Courts, including the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Emphasising that criminal prosecution under Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act and the IPC requires substantive material showing active involvement or conspiracy, the Court held that an administrative omission in failing to delete the petitioner’s name from the clinic’s records could not be converted into criminal culpability. Since no evidence connected the petitioner with the alleged sex determination procedure or the operation of the diagnostic centre on the date of the raid, the discharge order passed by the trial court was found to be correct.

Decision: The Criminal Revision was allowed. The High Court set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge reversing the petitioner’s discharge and restored the discharge order passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi, holding that no prima facie case was made out against the petitioner under the PCPNDT Act or the Indian Penal Code.