Dr. Shyam Bihari v. State of Haryana, 2026

A raid was conducted on 27 July 2016 at Janta Diagnostic Centre, Hansi, following secret information regarding illegal prenatal sex determination.

According to the prosecution, a decoy customer, through a tout, underwent an ultrasound examination and was informed that she was carrying a male foetus.

During the raid, marked currency notes amounting to ₹26,500 were recovered from the clinic owner, S.S. Mann, and other accused persons were apprehended.

The petitioner, Dr. Shyam Bihari, a radiologist, was neither named in the FIR nor mentioned in the spot memo prepared during the raid.

The ultrasound report and mandatory Form 'F' recovered from the clinic identified Dr. Sudhir Kumar Dhusia as the radiologist who had performed the ultrasound examination.

Dr. Dhusia stated that after he joined the diagnostic centre in February 2015, the petitioner had never visited or worked at the clinic.

The petitioner asserted that he had ceased working at Janta Diagnostic Centre on 5 November 2012 and thereafter shifted his professional practice to Delhi and Gurgaon.

Investigation revealed that on the date of the raid, the petitioner was working as a consultant radiologist at Health Map Diagnostic, Civil Hospital, Gurgaon, and the attendance register of that hospital recorded his presence on the relevant date.

The attendance register of Janta Diagnostic Centre did not contain the petitioner's name on the day of the raid.

The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi, discharged the petitioner, holding that no substantive material connected him with the alleged offence.

However, the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, reversed the discharge order on the ground that the petitioner's name had not been formally removed from the diagnostic centre's registration panel and further held that his registration at multiple centres violated the PCPNDT Rules.

Aggrieved by the revisional order, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The High Court held that mere continuation of a doctor's name on the registration panel of a diagnostic centre does not by itself constitute sufficient material to prosecute him under the PCPNDT Act.

The Court observed that criminal prosecution under Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act or Section 420 IPC requires prima facie evidence demonstrating active participation, physical involvement, or conspiracy in the commission of the alleged offence.

The Court found that there was absolutely no evidence placing the petitioner at the diagnostic centre on the date of the raid.

The Court accepted the documentary evidence showing that the petitioner had left Janta Diagnostic Centre in 2012 and was working in Gurgaon on the date of the alleged offence.

The Court held that the continued appearance of the petitioner's name on the clinic's registration panel was merely an administrative omission attributable to delayed updating of records and could not give rise to criminal liability.

The Court clarified that Rule 3(3)(3) of the PCPNDT Rules restricts registration only with respect to diagnostic centres situated within the same district and does not prohibit registration in different districts or States.

The Court further noted that the operation of Rule 3(3)(3) had already been stayed by several High Courts, including the Bombay, Delhi, and Punjab and Haryana High Courts, making the alleged violation legally unenforceable at the relevant time.

The Court held that a doctor cannot be held vicariously liable for illegal acts committed by the owner or staff of a diagnostic centre solely because his earlier registration had not been formally cancelled.

The Court found that the Additional Sessions Judge had reversed a well-reasoned discharge order on purely technical and legally unsustainable grounds.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the revisional order, and restored the discharge order passed by the Trial Court.

The Court emphasized that prosecution under the PCPNDT Act requires credible material linking the accused with the alleged illegal sex-determination procedure through active involvement or conspiracy.

The decision safeguards medical professionals from unwarranted prosecution where documentary evidence clearly establishes their non-involvement in the alleged offence.

The Court correctly distinguished between administrative compliance under the PCPNDT regulatory framework and criminal culpability requiring proof of mens rea and participation.

By interpreting Rule 3(3)(3) narrowly, the judgment clarifies that the Rule does not prohibit a doctor from being registered with diagnostic centres located in different districts or States.

The ruling also recognizes the legal significance of interim judicial stays granted by various High Courts, preventing criminal prosecution based on a rule whose operation had been stayed.

The judgment strengthens the principle that discharge orders should not be interfered with in revision unless there exists substantial material justifying criminal prosecution.

Overall, the decision balances strict enforcement of the PCPNDT Act with the equally important need to protect innocent professionals from criminal proceedings unsupported by substantive evidence.