In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India, in Criminal Appeal No. 3747 of 2024, quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings against Dr. Ravinder Kumar and his co-accused, Dhanpati and Anju, in a case involving allegations of illegal sex determination and termination of pregnancy. The bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih delivered the judgment, citing that the search and seizure operation conducted at the appellant’s clinic was illegal due to procedural lapses.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to April 27, 2017, when a team led by the Civil Surgeon of Gurugram conducted a raid at the Divine Diagnostic Centre, owned by Dr. Ravinder Kumar. The raid was based on a complaint against Dhanpati (Accused No. 1), who was alleged to be involved in illegal sex determination and termination of pregnancy. A decoy operation was set up, during which Dhanpati allegedly agreed to confirm the sex of the foetus through ultrasound and perform a medical termination of pregnancy. The decoy patient, accompanied by a shadow witness, handed over a sum of ₹15,000 to Dhanpati. Subsequently, the police arrested Dhanpati and another nurse, Anju (Accused No. 2), and seized cash and documents from the clinic.
An FIR was registered on the same day under Section 23 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. Following this, the District Appropriate Authority filed a complaint against the accused for allegedly conducting illegal sex determination using ultrasound.
Legal Issues
The legal battle centered on the procedural validity of the search and seizure conducted at Dr. Kumar’s clinic. The appellant’s counsel argued that the raid was unlawful as it was not authorized by the Appropriate Authority in accordance with Section 30(1) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994. The counsel pointed out that the order for the raid was signed solely by the Civil Surgeon, Dr. Virender Yadav, who acted in his capacity as the Chairman of the District Appropriate Authority, without the consent of the other two members of the authority, namely the District Programme Officer and the District Attorney, as required under the Act.
The State’s counsel conceded that the raid authorization was signed only by the Civil Surgeon but defended it on grounds of urgency, claiming that the irregularity was curable and had been rectified by subsequent actions of the Appropriate Authority.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, emphasized the stringent requirements of the law concerning the search and seizure powers under Section 30 of the 1994 Act. The Court observed, “If the law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, the same shall be done in that manner only.” It underscored that the decision to authorize a search must be made by the entire Appropriate Authority and not by an individual member.
Quoting its earlier decisions, the Court stated, “The safeguard is that search and seizure can be authorized only if the Appropriate Authority has a reason to believe that an offence under the 1994 Act has been committed or is being committed.” The Court held that in this case, there was no collective decision by the Appropriate Authority, rendering the search illegal.
The Court also pointed out inconsistencies in the documentation related to the raid. The seizure memo recorded only three officers’ names, while another letter indicated a four-member team conducted the raid, further questioning the credibility of the procedure.
Justice Abhay S. Oka, writing for the bench, concluded that “as the search itself is entirely illegal, continuing prosecution based on such an illegal search will amount to abuse of the process of law.” Consequently, the Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and quashed FIR No. 408 dated April 27, 2017, and the complaint bearing No. COMA No. 40 of 2018 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram.
