Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Complaint in Sex Determination Case Due to Illegal Search: Ravinder Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2024)

Date of the Judgment: September 12, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 684
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Augustine George Masih, J.

Can a search and seizure conducted without proper authorization by the designated authority be the basis for a criminal prosecution? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning alleged violations of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. The Court held that a search conducted without the proper authorization from the full Appropriate Authority is illegal, and any prosecution based on such a search is an abuse of the process of law. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, with Justice Oka authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around a raid conducted on April 27, 2017, at the clinic of the appellant, Ravinder Kumar, who claimed to be a general physician and radiologist. The raid was based on a complaint against one Dhanpati, who was allegedly running a sex determination and medical termination of pregnancy racket. A decoy patient was used, and it was alleged that Dhanpati had arranged for the medical termination of the pregnancy of the decoy patient. The decoy patient and a shadow witness informed Dhanpati that they knew the sex of the fetus and wanted to reconfirm it through an ultrasound. Dhanpati allegedly contacted the decoy patient to arrange for an ultrasound at the appellant’s clinic, Divine Diagnostic Centre, for a fee of Rs. 15,000.

The decoy patient was given Rs. 15,000, and the search party, along with the police, the shadow witness, and the decoy patient, went to the Gurugram bus stand, where Dhanpati took the money. Dhanpati then called a nurse, Anju, and gave her a part of the money. The decoy patient and Anju entered the appellant’s clinic. When they came out, the police caught them. The search team entered the clinic, seized the cash, and recovered a USG report for the decoy patient, allegedly signed by the appellant.

A First Information Report (FIR) was registered on April 27, 2017, at the Gurugram Police Station, alleging an offense under Section 23 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (the Act of 1994). A complaint was later filed by the District Appropriate Authority under Section 28(1) of the Act of 1994 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram, against the appellant, Dhanpati, and Anju, alleging illegal sex determination of a fetus using ultrasound.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant filed a petition before the High Court to quash the complaint and the FIR. The High Court declined to do so, leading the appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the following legal provisions:

• Section 23 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994: This section deals with offenses and penalties for contravening the Act. It states:
  
  “23. Offences and penalties .- (1) Any medical geneticist, gynaecologist, registered medical practitioner or any person who owns a Genetic Counselling Centre, a Genetic Laboratory or a Genetic Clinic or is employed in such a Centre, Laboratory or Clinic and renders his professional or technical services to or at such a Centre, Laboratory or Clinic, whether on an honorary basis or otherwise, and who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees and on any subsequent conviction, with imprisonment which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees.”
• Section 28 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994: This section outlines the procedure for cognizance of offenses. It states:
  
  “28. Cognizance of offences. – 1. No court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a complaint made by — (a) the appropriate authority concerned, or any officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be, or the appropriate authority ; or (b) a person who has given notice of not less than fifteen days in the manner prescribed, to the appropriate authority, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint to the court.”
• Section 30(1) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994: This section grants the power to search and seize records. It states:
  
  “30. Power to search and seize records, etc. –(1) If the Appropriate Authority has reason to believe that an offence under this Act has been or is being committed at any Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic or any other place, such Authority or any officer authorised thereof in this behalf may, subject to such rules as may be prescribed, enter and search at all reasonable times with such assistance, if any, as such authority or officer considers necessary, such Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic or any other place and examine any record, register, document, book, pamphlet, advertisement or any other material object found therein and seize and seal the same if such Authority or officer has reason to believe that it may furnish evidence of the commission of an office punishable under this Act.”
• Section 17 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994: This section deals with the appointment of Appropriate Authorities. It states:
  
  “17. Appropriate Authority and Advisory Committee. – 1. The Central Government shall appoint, by notification in the Official Gazette, one or more Appropriate Authorities for each of the Union territories for the purposes of this Act. 2. The State Government shall appoint, by notification in the Official Gazette, one or more Appropriate Authorities for the whole or part of the State for the purposes of this Act having regard to the intensity of the problem of pre -natal sex determination leading to female foeticide. 3. The officers appointed as Appropriate Authorities under sub -section (1) or sub -section (2) shall be, — (a) when appointed for the whole of the State or the Union territory, consisting of the following three members: – i) an officer of or above the rank of the Joint Director of Health and Family Welfare – Chairperson; ii) an eminent woman representing women’s organization; and iii) an officer of Law Department of the State or the Union territory concerned: Provided that it shall be the duty of the State or the Union territory concerned to constitute multimember State or Union territory level appropriate authority within three months of the coming into force of the Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Amendment Act, 2002: Provided further that any vacancy occurring therein shall be filled within three months of that occurrence. (b) when appointed for any part of the State or the Union territory, of such other rank as the State Government or the Central Government, as the case may be, may deem fit.”
• Section 26 of the Indian Penal Code: This section defines “reason to believe.” It states:
  
  “26. “Reason to believe”. — A person is said to have “reason to believe” a thing, if he has sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the raid conducted at his clinic was illegal because it was not authorized by the full Appropriate Authority as required under Section 30(1) of the Act of 1994.
• The appellant pointed out that the search order was signed only by the Civil Surgeon, who was the Chairman of the District Appropriate Authority, and not by the other two members.
• The appellant contended that the FIR and complaint were based solely on the material seized during this illegal raid.
• The appellant relied on a notification issued by the Government of Haryana on November 7, 2013, which constituted the Appropriate Authorities for each district, comprising the Civil Surgeon, District Programme Officer, and District Attorney.
• The appellant highlighted that the Civil Surgeon, in an affidavit, admitted that he alone constituted the raiding team, which was contrary to the provisions of the Act.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the Civil Surgeon had to take action due to an emergency.
• The State submitted that the complaint under Section 28(1) was filed by an officer authorized by the Appropriate Authority.
• The State contended that any defect in the procedure of appointing officers for the raid was a curable irregularity and had been cured by the subsequent order of the Appropriate Authority to file a complaint.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in highlighting the procedural lapse in the constitution of the raiding team, emphasizing that the decision to conduct a search must be a collective decision of the Appropriate Authority, not an individual one.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issue:

1. Whether the search conducted at the appellant’s clinic was legal and in compliance with Section 30(1) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Section 23 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994: The Court considered this section to understand the penal provisions under the Act.
• Section 28 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994: The Court examined this section to understand the procedure for cognizance of offenses.
• Section 30(1) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994: The Court analyzed this section to determine the legality of the search and seizure.
• Section 17 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994: The Court considered this section to determine the composition of the Appropriate Authority.
• Section 26 of the Indian Penal Code: The Court used this section to interpret the meaning of “reason to believe.”
• Aslam Mohammad Merchant v. Competent Authority & Ors. [(2008) 14 SCC 186]: The Supreme Court cited this case to interpret the expression “reason to believe,” noting that the reasons must be apparent or available on the materials placed before the authority.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 23 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994: The Court used this section to understand the penal provisions under the Act.
• Section 28 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994: The Court used this section to understand the procedure for cognizance of offenses.
• Section 30(1) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994: The Court interpreted that this section requires the Appropriate Authority to have a reason to believe that an offense has been or is being committed before authorizing a search. The Court held that this decision must be made by the full authority, not just one member.
• Section 17 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994: The Court used this section to determine the composition of the Appropriate Authority.
• Section 26 of the Indian Penal Code: The Court used this section to define “reason to believe,” stating that there must be sufficient cause to believe something.
• Aslam Mohammad Merchant v. Competent Authority & Ors. [(2008) 14 SCC 186]: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that the reasons for a belief must be evident or available on the materials before the authority.

The Supreme Court held that the search conducted at the appellant’s clinic was illegal because it was not authorized by the full Appropriate Authority as required under Section 30(1) of the Act of 1994. The Court emphasized that the decision to conduct a search must be a collective decision of the Appropriate Authority, not an individual one. The Court also noted that the FIR and complaint were based on the material seized during this illegal raid.

The Court stated, “If the law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, the same shall be done in that manner only.” The Court also observed, “The Appropriate Authority is not required to record reasons for concluding that it has reason to believe that an offence under the 1994 Act has been or is being committed. But, there has to be a rational basis to form that belief.” Further, the Court noted, “As the search itself is entirely illegal, continuing prosecution based on such an illegal search will amount to abuse of the process of law.”

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and quashed the FIR and the complaint against the appellant.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural illegality of the search conducted at the appellant’s clinic. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory requirements of Section 30(1) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. The Court’s reasoning was driven by the following key points:

• Collective Decision-Making: The Court stressed that the decision to conduct a search must be a collective decision of the entire Appropriate Authority, not just one member. The Civil Surgeon’s unilateral decision was deemed a violation of the statutory mandate.
• Safeguards Against Arbitrary Action: The Court highlighted that Section 30(1) provides a safeguard against arbitrary search and seizure actions by requiring the Appropriate Authority to have a “reason to believe” that an offense has been or is being committed. This safeguard was undermined by the Civil Surgeon’s individual decision.
• Importance of Due Process: The Court underscored the importance of following the prescribed legal procedure. The Court noted that when the law mandates a particular action to be done in a specific way, it must be done that way only.
• Abuse of Process: The Court concluded that continuing a prosecution based on an illegal search would be an abuse of the process of law. The Court held that the evidence obtained from the illegal search could not be used to prosecute the appellant.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis:

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on the interpretation of the law and the procedural requirements of the Act, with less emphasis on the factual aspects of the case.

Key Takeaways

• Procedural Compliance is Mandatory: Authorities must strictly adhere to the procedures laid down in the law. Any deviation from the prescribed procedure can render the action illegal.
• Collective Decision-Making: When a statute requires a decision to be made by a body, the decision must be a collective one and not an individual decision of one member.
• Safeguards Against Arbitrariness: Legal provisions that provide safeguards against arbitrary actions must be strictly followed. These safeguards are crucial for protecting individual rights.
• Consequences of Illegal Actions: Actions taken illegally cannot form the basis of a criminal prosecution. Any such prosecution is an abuse of the process of law.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions other than quashing the FIR and the complaint.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a search conducted under Section 30(1) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, must be authorized by the full Appropriate Authority, not just one member. This decision reinforces the importance of procedural compliance and collective decision-making in statutory actions. The ruling clarifies that any search conducted without proper authorization is illegal, and any prosecution based on such a search is an abuse of the process of law. This case does not change the previous position of law but rather reinforces the existing legal framework.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ravinder Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2024) underscores the importance of strict adherence to legal procedures in conducting searches and seizures. The Court quashed the FIR and complaint against the appellant, holding that the search conducted at his clinic was illegal because it was not authorized by the full Appropriate Authority. This decision serves as a reminder that authorities must comply with the law and that any deviation from prescribed procedures can render their actions invalid.

Category

Parent Category: Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994
Child Categories:

• Section 23, Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994
• Section 28, Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994
• Section 30, Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994
• Section 17, Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994
• Appropriate Authority
• Illegal Search
• Sex Determination
• Abuse of Process
• Criminal Prosecution

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Ravinder Kumar vs. State of Haryana case?

A: The main issue was whether the search conducted at the appellant’s clinic was legal under Section 30(1) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court quash the FIR and complaint?

A: The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and complaint because the search was deemed illegal. The decision to conduct the search was made only by the Civil Surgeon, not by the full Appropriate Authority as required by law.

Q: What is the significance of the “Appropriate Authority” in this case?

A: The “Appropriate Authority” is the body authorized to conduct searches under the Act. The Supreme Court emphasized that the decision to conduct a search must be a collective one by all members of the Authority, not an individual decision by one member.

Q: What does the term “reason to believe” mean in this context?

A: “Reason to believe” means that the Appropriate Authority must have sufficient cause to believe that an offense has been or is being committed before authorizing a search. This belief must be based on rational grounds.

Q: What are the practical implications of this judgment?

A: The judgment emphasizes the importance of strictly adhering to legal procedures when conducting searches and seizures. It also highlights that authorities must make collective decisions when required by law and that evidence obtained from illegal searches cannot be used in criminal prosecutions.