Illegal Search Does Not Mean Illegal Evidence: Supreme Court Refuses To Quash PCPNDT Complaint Against Radiologist

"Non-Maintenance of Form F Is The Springboard For Commission of Offence of Foeticide, Not Just a Clerical Error", Today, On February 23, 2026, the Supreme Court of India addressing a nuanced and consequential question under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994: whether an illegal sting operation and the resultant search automatically renders the seized evidence inadmissible and the criminal complaint liable to be quashed.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that while the search itself was illegal — having been ordered by a single member of the District Appropriate Authority in violation of Section 30 of the PCPNDT Act — the evidence and materials gathered during such search are not rendered inadmissible and can be acted upon subject to the rules of relevancy and admissibility. The complaint was accordingly not quashed.

The case arose from a sting operation conducted on September 17, 2015 at Vatika Medicare in Sector 45, Gurugram, targeting a radiologist, Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg. Acting upon a complaint received from one Smt. Rajni alleging that a certain Dr. Abdul Kadir was running a racket of illegal sex-determination, the Civil Surgeon of Gurugram, Dr. Pushpa Bishnoi, who was also the Chairperson of the District Appropriate Authority, constituted a three-member raiding team. Crucially, this decision was taken unilaterally by the Civil Surgeon without associating the other two members of the District Appropriate Authority — the District Programme Officer, Women and Child Development Department, and the District Attorney.

A pregnant woman named Smt. Suman, who was at the Civil Hospital for a routine checkup, was requested to act as a decoy patient and consented. A shadow witness, Smt. Rajni, called Dr. Abdul Kadir and arranged for sex determination of the decoy patient's foetus for Rs. 25,000. Dr. Kadir drove the decoy patient to Vatika Medicare and informed the two ladies, prior to reaching the clinic, that Dr. Naresh Garg "would neither ask the patient to sign any document nor would he sign Form F" and "would not make any entry of the patient in the register." This pre-arrangement formed a significant part of the prosecution's case.

Upon reaching the clinic, ultrasonography was allegedly conducted by Dr. Garg on Smt. Suman. The raiding team swooped in, recovered Rs. 25,000 from Dr. Kadir's pocket — with the currency note numbers matching those given to the decoy patient — and confronted Dr. Garg. Examination of records at the clinic confirmed that Form F had not been signed by Dr. Garg, and the name of Smt. Suman found no entry in any register maintained at the hospital.

An FIR was registered the same day. However, upon conclusion of investigation, the police themselves filed a discharge application noting absence of evidence of actual sex determination, while flagging discrepancies in record maintenance. The trial court discharged Dr. Garg on October 28, 2015. The discharge application by the police itself noted that for deficiencies in record maintenance, "there are separate provisions in the PCPNDT Act for filing a complaint case through the District Appropriate Authority."

The District Advisory Committee, meeting on December 17, 2015, thereafter recommended filing of a complaint against Dr. Garg, Dr. Abdul Kadir, and Vatika Medicare. Pursuant to a formal authorization issued on September 17, 2018, a complaint bearing No. COMA/116/2018 was filed by the District Appropriate Authority through Deputy Civil Surgeon Dr. Chitranjan under Sections 4, 5, 6, and 29 of the PCPNDT Act read with Rules 9 and 10 of the PCPNDT Rules. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, summoned the accused on September 12, 2022.

Dr. Garg challenged the complaint and summoning order before the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Section 482 CrPC, which dismissed the quashing petition on July 24, 2024. He then approached the Supreme Court.

Was the sting operation and search illegal for having been ordered by a single member of the District Appropriate Authority?

The appellant's senior counsel Mr. Bhalla placed heavy reliance on the Supreme Court's earlier two-judge bench decision in Ravindra Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2024 SCC Online SC 2495), which had examined an almost identical factual matrix — a sting operation in Gurugram ordered by the same Civil Surgeon under the same notification constituting the District Appropriate Authority. That bench had categorically held that "if a single member of the appropriate authority authorizes a search, it will be completely illegal being contrary to sub-section (1) of Section 30" of the PCPNDT Act. In Ravindra Kumar, the Court had quashed the FIR and complaint on the basis that these were based entirely on the materials seized during such an illegal search.

The Court in the present case carefully examined the communication/order dated September 17, 2015 and confirmed that it was issued solely by the Civil Surgeon acting as Chairperson, without any collective decision of the District Appropriate Authority. "Nothing has been placed on record by the respondents to show that there was any meeting of mind of the members of the District Appropriate Authority on the basis of which the Chairperson had issued the communication/order dated 17.09.2015." The Court held that "the ratio in Ravindra Kumar would be applicable to this case as well," thereby confirming the search at Vatika Medicare was illegal.

However, the Court drew a critical distinction: the ratio of Ravindra Kumar extends only to the illegality of the search itself, and not automatically to the quashing of the complaint where independent evidence of statutory violations exists. The "relief granted or the final directions issued" in Ravindra Kumar were "on the facts of that case and are not part of the ratio decidendi."

Does an illegal search render the seized evidence inadmissible?

This was the pivotal legal question on which the case turned. The Court declined to adopt the proposition that an illegal search automatically contaminates and renders inadmissible all evidence gathered during it. Relying on a line of authoritative precedents, the bench held that "while the search may be illegal, the materials or evidence gathered or collected in the course of such search can still be acted or relied upon subject to the rule of relevancy and the test of admissibility."

The Court invoked the Constitution Bench decision in Pooran Mal vs. Director of Inspection (Investigation), New Delhi (1974) 1 SCC 345, which had definitively held that the Indian Evidence Act permits relevancy as the only test of admissibility. The Indian Evidence Act "does not exclude relevant evidence on the ground that it was obtained under an illegal search or seizure." The Court quoted the Constitution Bench's conclusion: "Unless there is an express or necessarily implied prohibition in law, evidence obtained as a result of illegal search or seizure is not liable to be shut out."

The bench also relied on the three-judge bench ruling in Radha Kishan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1963 SC 822), which held that "even assuming that the search was illegal the seizure of the articles is not vitiated" — though courts may examine the seizure evidence with greater care. The decision in R.M. Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra (1973 (1) SCC 471) and Magraj Patodia vs. R.K. Birla (AIR 1971 SC 1295) were also relied upon — collectively standing for the proposition that evidence procured by improper or even illegal means is admissible provided relevance and genuineness are proved, with courts retaining a discretion in criminal cases.

Is non-maintenance of Form F merely a technical lapse, or a statutory offence?

The Court reaffirmed its earlier ruling in Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI) vs. Union of India (2019) 6 SCC 283 in unequivocal terms. The proviso to Section 4(3) of the PCPNDT Act mandates every person conducting ultrasonography to "keep complete record thereof in the clinic in such manner as may be prescribed" and expressly provides that "any deficiency or inaccuracy found therein shall amount to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or Section 6" unless the contrary is proved by the person conducting such ultrasonography. The burden of proof is placed squarely on the radiologist.

In FOGSI, the Court had held that "non-maintenance of record is the springboard for commission of offence of foeticide, not just a clerical error" and that "complete contents of Form F are held to be mandatory." Reaffirming this position, the present bench held that Dr. Garg's failure to sign Form F or make any entry of the patient in the register constitutes a prima facie offence under Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act, and this is a matter for determination at trial.

The Court observed: "Dilution of the provisions of the Act or the Rules would only defeat the purpose of the Act to prevent female foeticide, and relegate the right to life of the girl child under Article 21 of the Constitution, to a mere formality."

Can a complaint by the District Appropriate Authority proceed after the accused was discharged in a police case based on the same facts?

The appellant contended that since he was discharged from the FIR proceedings upon the police's own application, the subsequent complaint was not maintainable as it was based on identical evidence. The Court rejected this argument as "misconceived." Section 28(1)(a) of the PCPNDT Act mandates that courts shall take cognizance of offences under the Act "only upon a complaint made by the Appropriate Authority." Further, Rule 18A(3)(iv) of the PCPNDT Rules specifically directs appropriate authorities not to involve police in investigating PCPNDT cases, as these are tried as complaint cases under CrPC.

The Court further noted that the police discharge application itself had acknowledged that discrepancies in record maintenance called for a complaint case under the PCPNDT Act. "Discharge of the appellant in the police case would be of no consequence" to the independent statutory complaint filed by the District Appropriate Authority.

Was the District Advisory Committee proceedings vitiated by the presence of a raiding party member?

The appellant argued that one Shri Shyam Sunder, a member of the raiding party, was included in the District Advisory Committee, violating Rule 18A(2)(ii) which bars persons "who are part of the investigating machinery in cases under the PCPNDT Act" from being members of the advisory committee. The Court rejected this. Shri Shyam Sunder was a civilian volunteer associated with the Red Cross and was never part of any investigating machinery within the meaning of Rule 18A. Moreover, the Court held that Rule 18A contains "guidelines" and "general code of conduct" which are "directory in nature," and a violation thereof would render proceedings "irregular, not illegal." Separately, the Court also addressed the argument that Dr. Saryu Sharma's membership in both the raiding party and the District Advisory Committee was impermissible, holding that Dr. Sharma, as Deputy Civil Surgeon part of the health enforcement team, was never part of any "investigating machinery" within the meaning of the rule.

The Court dismissed the criminal appeal, refusing to quash the complaint bearing No. COMA/116/2018 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram. While unambiguously affirming the illegality of the search — following the coordinate bench in Ravindra Kumar — the Court drew a distinction of critical importance for future cases under the PCPNDT Act: the ratio of Ravindra Kumar operates to invalidate the search, not to discard all evidence gathered during it. The bench declined to "discard evidence like the baby with the bath water."

On the social importance of the legislation, the Court reiterated: "Discrimination against women, more particularly against the girl child, is widely prevalent across several parts of the country. Female foeticide is a crude manifestation of such a social malady." Courts must be slow to quash complaint proceedings at the threshold on hyper-technical grounds, as doing so would "weaken enforcement at the grassroot level and undermine the legislative intent to protect the girl child."

The Court clarified that no opinion has been expressed on the merits of the allegations and "all contentions qua reliability and admissibility of evidence are kept open" for determination at trial.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declined to quash the criminal complaint. While the sting operation and search were held to be illegal — having been ordered by a single member of the District Appropriate Authority in violation of Section 30 — the Court held that this illegality does not automatically render the seized evidence inadmissible or the complaint unsustainable. The complaint must proceed to trial, where issues of the reliability and admissibility of evidence will be determined. The Court delivered an important clarification on the scope of Ravindra Kumar, holding that its ratio extends to the illegality of the search and no further. Non-maintenance of Form F records remains a serious statutory offence under the PCPNDT Act, one that cannot be trivialized as a procedural lapse, and the right to life of the girl child under Article 21 continues to inform a strict approach to the Act's enforcement.

Date of Decision: February 23, 2026