Delhi HC turns down FIR against doctor in PC & PNDT act

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court recently quashed an FIR against a doctor accused of revealing a foetus’ sex, citing insufficient evidence of any legal violation.

The court found no proof that the pre-diagnostic procedures carried out by the doctor breached the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PC & PNDT) Act.

In the order issued last month, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh 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 noted that the allegations against the doctor solely involved performing an ultrasound on a decoy patient, without any evidence of determining or communicating the foetus’ sex, which would violate Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the PC and PNDT Act.

The PC & PNDT Act explicitly prohibits prenatal diagnostic techniques from being used to determine a foetus’ sex. After reviewing the facts, the court concluded that no prima facie case had been established against the doctor.

Case History

In August 2020, authorities conducted a decoy operation at an ultrasound center in Hari Nagar, leading to the registration of a case under the PC and PNDT Act.

The FIR alleged that the doctor performed the ultrasound while another employee at the lab disclosed the foetus’ sex. The doctor was subsequently arrested and later granted bail.

Seeking to quash the FIR, the doctor approached the high court, arguing that no chargesheet had been filed even after more than three years, indicating that the case lacked merit. Her counsel further contended that the FIR’s existence negatively impacted the doctor’s professional reputation and standing in society.

The prosecution opposed the plea, maintaining that while the doctor performed the ultrasound, the alleged disclosure of the foetus’ sex was done by a co-accused. Despite these claims, the court observed that the FIR did not contain any direct accusation against the doctor warranting action under the PC and PNDT Act.

The court also emphasized the undue delay in filing the chargesheet, stating that prolonging the case would lead to unnecessary harassment. As a result, it quashed the FIR to prevent further inconvenience to the doctor.