The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR against a doctor accused of disclosing the sex of a foetus, citing a lack of evidence that the medical procedures conducted violated the law.
The court found no indication that the pre-diagnostic techniques performed by the doctor contravened the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PC and PNDT) Act.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, in an order issued last month, stated, “There is nothing placed on record to satisfy this court that the operation so performed by the petitioner (doctor) was in contravention of the law.”
The court observed that the uncontroverted allegations against the doctor were limited to conducting an ultrasound on a decoy patient and found no evidence suggesting she determined or communicated the sex of the foetus, thereby violating Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the PC and PNDT Act.
The PC and PNDT Act strictly prohibits the use of prenatal diagnostic techniques for determining a foetus’ sex. The court concluded that a prima facie case against the doctor had not been established.
Case History
In August 2020, a decoy operation was conducted at an ultrasound center in Hari Nagar, leading to the registration of a case under the PC and PNDT Act. The allegations claimed that while the doctor performed the ultrasound, another person employed at the lab disclosed the sex of the foetus. Following the FIR, the doctor was arrested but later granted bail.
Subsequently, the doctor approached the high court, seeking the quashing of the FIR. Her counsel argued that despite more than three years having passed, the police had not filed a chargesheet, indicating that no case could be made against her. It was further submitted that the ongoing FIR adversely affected the petitioner’s reputation, given her standing in society.
The prosecution, however, opposed the plea, asserting that the ultrasound was conducted by the petitioner and that the alleged disclosure of the foetus’ sex was made by a co-accused. Despite these arguments, the court noted that the FIR did not specifically assign any role to the petitioner that could prima facie attract the provisions of the PC and PNDT Act.
Additionally, the court highlighted the significant delay in filing the chargesheet, stating that prolonging the matter would result in unnecessary harassment of the petitioner. Consequently, the court ruled that the FIR be quashed to prevent further hardship to the doctor.
