The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, rep., through the P.P., High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad District Appropriate Authority, Rep., by Dr. J. Venkati S/o J. Sudharshan, aged about 51 Yrs., Occ District Medical and Health Officer,4th Floor, N.T.P.C. Building and Municipal Complex, Patny Circle, Secunderabad-3. ...Respondents/De facto Complainant Petition under Section 482 of C:.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to allow the Crl. Pet., quash the Proceedings in CC No on 2394/20020 pending before the Xl th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad , for the Offences for (i) Violation of Rule 9,'10 of Pre Natal Diagnostic Techniques ( Regulation and Prevention of Misuses) Rules, 1996 , (ii) Viotation of Rule 13 of Pre-Conception andPre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Rules, 1996, Punishable Under Sec. 23 of P.C. and P.N.D.T. Act, 1994 and issuance of process to the petitioners, by awarding the costs to meet the ends of justice l.A. NO: 1OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased To pass an order staying all further proceedings , including the attendance of the petitioners in CC No:2394120020 pending before the Xl th Addl. Chief Metropolitan lVlagistrate at Secunderabad , for the Offences for (i) Violation of Rule 9,1 0 of Pre Natal Diagnostic Techniques ( Regulation and Prevention of Misuses) Rules, 1996 , (ii) Violation of Rule 13 of Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Rules, 1996, Punishable Under Sec 23 of P.C. & P.N.D.T. Act, 1994. till finalization of the Crl.Pet., to meet the ends of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A PRABHAKAR RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: OROER THE HONOURABLE SMT, JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.7411 of 2022 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners- accused Nos.1 to 6 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.2394 of 2022 on the file of the learned Xl Additional Chief Metropolitan tvlagistrate at Secunderabad, registered for the violation of Rules 9 and '10 of the Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of lrlisuse) Rules, 1996 (for short 'Rules 1996') and Rule 13 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostrc Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1996 (for short 'the PNDT Act') and for the offence under Section 23 of the PNDT Act, 1996

02. Heard [Vlr.A.Prabhakar Ravo, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 and Mrs.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State-respondent No.1 . No representation on behalf of the respondent No.2. Perused the record

03. Brief facts of the case are that the accused No.1 is the Registered Diagnostic Service Centre Hospital under the name and style of IV/s.Parkline Diagnostic 2 Services represented by the accused No.2-Director, the accused Nos.3 to 6 are Doctors (Radiologists) working in the accused No.'1-hospital On '19.08 2019 the Additional District Medical and Health Officer inspected the accused No. 1-hospital along with the National lnstitute of Medical Statistics and Coordination (N llMC) team and found that there were some violations with regard to non-availment of declaration from Doctor under Form-F and non- mentioning of pregnant women who underwent ultra sound scan in the months of June and July, 2019 and there is no mention of delivery history of pregnant women PC&PNDT Register is also not maintained properly which ts mandatory as per the Rules, 1996. Thereby, the petitioners-accused Nos.'l to 6 are liable for the violations of the Rules, 1996 and the provisions of the PNDT Act,

04. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged violations and offence. He further submits that all the allegations levelled against the petitioners-accused Nos.'1 to 6 are false and baseless. There is no preliminary enquiry conducted by the Appropriate Authority and w 3 Advisory Committee as required under Section 17 of the PNDT Act The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 had never conducted any ultra sound scan and no pregnant women undergone deliveries in accused No.'1-hospital, as such there are no records of images of scan of pregnant women and previous history of delivery of pregnant women in Form-F. There is no proper evidence collected by the respondent No.2 for launching prosecution against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6. Hence, he prayed to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners- accused Nos.1 to 6

05. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State contended there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition

06. This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for either side. Normally, pre-natal diagnostic techniques, which 4 means and includes all pre_natal dragnostic procedures and pre-natal diagnostic tests would be carried out by the Radiologlsts. The pNDT Act mandates that unless registered under the PNDT Act, no Genetic Counselling Centre or Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic shall conduct or associate with, or help in conducting activities relating to pre_natal diagnostic techniques. lt is to be noted that it is not the case of respondent No.2 that the petitioners are runntng the diagnostic centre without any registratton or permission f rom competent authority,

07. Further, the liability of the Directors and other employees of the hospital and their responsibility, whether they can be held guilty of the offence. where the prime accused is the hospital, the Hon'ble Apex Court in pooja Ravinder Devidasani v. State of Maharashtra and othersl at paragraphs Nos '1 9 to 21 , 30 held as follows: "19. A Director of a Company is tiable to be convicted for an offence cornmitted by the Company if he,/she was in charge of and was responsible to the Company for the conduct of rfs busirress or if it is proved that the oftence was committec! with the consent or connivance of, or was attibutable to any ttegligence on the paft of the Director ' 1:o r+y to scc r j I I w 5 concerned ISee-- Slale of Karnataka vs Pratap Chand & Ors. (1981) 2 SCC 3351.

20. ln other words, the law laid down by this Court is that for making a Director of a Company liable for the offences committed by the Company under Seclion 141 of the N.l. Act, there must be specific averments against the Director showing as to how and in what manner the Director was responsible for the conduct of lhe bustness of fhe Company. 21 . ln Sabitha Ramamufthy & AnL Vs. R.A.S. Channbasavaradhya (2006) 1O SCC 587, it was held by this Court that it is not necessary for the complainant to specifically reproduce the wordings of the section but what is required is a clear statement of fact so as to enable the couft to arrive at a prima facie opinion that the accused is vicariously liable. fpic] Section 1 41 raises a legal fiction. By reason of the said provision, a person although is not personally liable for commission of such an offence would be vicariously liable therefor. Such vicarious liability can be rnferred so far as a company registered or incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 is concerned only if the requisite statements, which are required to be averred in the complaint petition, are made so as to make the accused therein vicariously liable for the offence committed by the company. By verbatim reproducing the wording of the Section without a clear statement of fact suppofted by proper evidence, so as [o make the accused vicariously liable, is a ground for quashing proceedings initiated against such person under Section 141 of the N.l. Act.

30. Putting the criminal law into motion is not a matter of course. To settle fhe scores between the pafties which are more in the nature of a civil -dispuie, the pafties cannot 6 be perntitted to put the criminal taw into ntotion artd Coufts cannot be a nlere spectator to it Before a lVlagistrate takrng cognizance of an offence under Section 138/141 of the N t. Act, making a person vicariously liable has to ensure strict compliance of the statutory requirements. The Superior Coufts should maintain ltLrrity in the administration of Justtce and sltoulc! not allow abuse of the process of the Court. Tlte Higli Court ougljt to have quashed the comptaint against the appeltant wltich is tlothing but a pure abuse of process of law. "

08. Thus, it is ctear that, though the Directors of the Company and other employees, as per Section 141 of the Negotiable lnstruments Act or as per Section 26 of the pNDT Act are proved to be in such a position, unless and until prima_facie proof is produced that they were rn-charge of and were responsible in conducting the business of the Company, they cannot be tagged with criminat Iiability. 09 Now coming to the power under Section 17-A of the PNDT Act, the Appropriate Authority ought to have investigated into the case by summonrng the persons who, according to it, were in custody of the Registers and were maintaining those Registers. Further, according to respondent No.2, the petitioner_ accused No.2 is the Director and the petitioners_ accused NoS.3 to 6 herein Radiologists. When it is the t w I 7 specific case of the petitioners that no such scans or delivery of pregnant women were conducted in the accused No..1 -hospital, it is bounden duty cast upon the respondent No.2-authority to enquire about the details of such persons who allegedly undergone scans or delrveries in contravention to the provisions of the PNDT Act

10. As observed supra, no preliminary enquiry was conducted into the genuineness or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6. When power is granted for investigation to the Appropriate Authority for collectron of appropriate material before lodging a complaint, the Appropriate Authority is under obligation to exercise the said power and to file a complaint thereafter, if required, so that the real culprits would be prosecuted and the innocent, if any, can be eliminated. But, in the case on hand, such an enquiry is not found to have been made. Mere seizure of some machines and finding that the records concerned are not available does not mean that the Doctors employed therein have vrolated the Rules. Admittedly, the Doctors employed, that too the 8 Radiologists, would conduct investigations, as required, or as prescribed, and would furnish report. lt is for the employees who were appointed bly the Hospital for the purpose of maintaining the records to maintain them properly and prompfly. lf the required records and registers are not maintained rn the proper shape and proper form as required under law, then the Hospital authorities, who are maintaining the records and registers, can be made vicariously liable, but not the Doctors, who are employed only for the purpose of operating the machines and submitting their opinion. 1'l . The role arrcJ oower of Appropriate Authority is clearly n.renti,:rred rrnder Sectio it l7 214 17-A of the pNDT Act By the contents of those provisiorrs it is clear that the role of the Appropriate Authority and the part to be played by it is exhaustive and it cannot just receive informatron in the forrh of a complaint or just act suo motu and lodge a complaint without proper verification. lt is not out of place to mention here that rf proper enquiry is conducted and the case is investigated into, the collection of material would even help the Appropriate Authority to place sufficient proof before the Court of law_ But without doing so i.e. without exercising the power of enqurry, / 9 without enquiring into the allegations levelled and the information received, if the complaint is lodged and criminal proceecJings are initiated, the same may not yield the desired result of the Appropriate Authority. Further, unhesitatingly, it can be said that the person roped in as an Accused would be put to enormous loss and hardship. That is not the intention of the Legislature which has passed the PNDT Act_

12. ln view of the above discussion including facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the firm opinion that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 amounts to sheer abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed. '1 3. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos l' to 6 in C C No 2394 of 2022 on the file of the learned Xl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabacl, are hereby quashed. SD'- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// sEcn#o;rcER To, \ 4/

1. The Xl Addl. Chief Metropolitan MagistJate at-Secunderabad' i. +i-il Gi;til nouie otriCrit, Mahankili Police station,,Hvderabad 5. o;; cE'6 SRIA PRABHAKAR RAo, Ad-vocatg toPucl ;. i;; Cari"-11,'" pubtic proiecutor, High Court foi the State of Telangana at . Two CD Co pres Hyderabad [OUT] HIGH COURT DATED: 1710412025 ORDER CRLP.No.7411 ot 2022 I rrE S14 I4: o(< o^ a( 2I J|JL 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION / I/ /// /