New Delhi: A Delhi Court has granted relief to a city-based doctor accused under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) Act, observing that there was insufficient material on record to frame charges.
Court Finds No Prima Facie Case Against Doctor
The bench of Justice Pankaj Rai discharged Dr. Sushil Garg, who had been facing charges under Sections 186, 353, 332, 341, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 23 and 25 of the PCPNDT Act. The Court held that “no prima facie case is made out” and disposed of all pending applications and the complaint.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a 2016 raid at a registered diagnostic centre in Delhi, where Dr. Garg was the in-charge. The raid was conducted by a team led by Dr. Singh, following which an FIR was registered alleging violations of the PCPNDT Act — a law aimed at preventing female foeticide by prohibiting sex determination before or after conception.
Arguments Presented by the Defence
Counsel for the accused argued that there was no evidence to justify framing charges against Dr. Garg. It was further contended that offences under the PCPNDT Act are not triable on the basis of a charge sheet and that the complainant lacked authority to conduct a raid in Delhi, as his jurisdiction was confined to Rohtak, Haryana.
Prosecution Defends Raid and Charges
Opposing the plea, the State’s counsel emphasized the purpose of the PCPNDT Act, asserting that it was enacted to combat female infanticide. The prosecution maintained that the arguments raised by the defence were matters of evidence that should be examined during trial, not at the pre-trial stage.
Court Examines Scope of Evidence and Jurisdiction
The Court clarified that while considering the question of framing charges, it must sift and weigh evidence only to determine if a prima facie case exists. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, including Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat and Asim Shariff v. NIA, the bench reiterated that grave suspicion, not conclusive proof, is sufficient for framing charges—but such suspicion must be based on credible material.
Complainant’s Authority Questioned
Observing the facts, the Court found that Dr. Singh, who led the raid, lacked authorization to operate outside Rohtak. The documents produced with the charge sheet did not show that he was permitted to conduct raids in Delhi. The Court stated, “His presence at the spot in Delhi cannot be said to have been in the discharge of his public functions or lawful duty.”
The Court also found procedural lapses under Section 195 of CrPC, as no valid complaint had been filed by a competent public servant to prosecute offences under Section 186 IPC.
No Evidence of Violation Under PCPNDT Act
Regarding alleged offences under Sections 23 and 25 of the PCPNDT Act, the bench noted that the charge sheet did not include any specific violations or supporting documents. No complaint or statement from the Delhi raid team or witnesses under Section 161 CrPC indicated a breach of the Act. “There is no material on record to establish any contravention of the PCPNDT provisions,” the Court stated.
Doctor Fully Discharged of All Charges
Finding no substantive evidence or jurisdictional basis to continue proceedings, the Court concluded that the material before it was insufficient to frame charges. Dr. Sushil Garg was therefore discharged of all offences under the IPC and the PCPNDT Act.
