Quashing of Complaint: PCPNDT Act – Incomplete records are not trivial clerical slips

In Dr. Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra &Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 635, decided on June 11, 2026], the Supreme Court of India adjudicated an appeal against a Bombay High Court judgment that had upheld a Judicial Magistrate’s order taking cognizance of criminal offenses under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act). The appellant, a medical professional, faced prosecution following a search and seizure operation at his clinic that revealed critical blanks and structural deficiencies in the mandatory Form ‘F’ records. The appellant challenged the prosecution on two primary grounds: first, that the District Civil Surgeon was not the legally designated “Appropriate Authority” to initiate the complaint, and second, that the omissions in Form ‘F’ were merely minor, technical, and unintentional clerical errors.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decisions of the lower courts and clearing the path for the appellant to face trial. A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra ruled that pursuant to a valid state notification, the District Civil Surgeon was fully competent to act as the Appropriate Authority under the Act. On the issue of record-keeping, the Court heavily relied on the landmark precedent in Federation of Obstetrics & Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI) v. Union of India (2019), re-establishing that the proper maintenance of Form ‘F’ is a mandatory, absolute statutory obligation. The Court held that incomplete records in a sonography center are not trivial clerical slips but function as a dangerous “springboard” for the crime of female foeticide. Reviewing extensive national and global data, the Bench emphasized that strict regulatory enforcement of the PCPNDT Act remains indispensable to combat deep-seated patriarchal biases and to safeguard the fundamental right to life of the girl child.

1. Factual Matrix and Legal Trajectory

• The Search and Seizure: An administrative authority conducted a search and seizure operation at the sonography center owned by the appellant, resulting in the sealing of his ultrasound equipment. The appellant was served a notice under Section 20(1) of the PCPNDT Act to offer an explanation and subsequently appeared before the statutory Advisory Committee.
• The Criminal Complaint: Upon finding a prima facie case of non-compliance, the authority directed the suspension of the clinic’s registration, and a formal criminal complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ardhapur. On June 9, 2016, the Magistrate took cognizance of the matter (RCC No. 16 of 2016) and issued process under Section 204 of the CrPC for offences punishable under Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act, citing violations of Sections 4(3), 5, 6, and 29, as well as several accompanying rules.
• The Rejection of Challenges: The appellant unsuccessfully filed a Criminal Revision Petition before the Sessions Court, followed by a Criminal Writ Petition (CrWP No. 1363 of 2017) before the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court. The High Court dismissed his pleas, noting that a state notification dated May 15, 2015, explicitly empowered the District Civil Surgeon as the Appropriate Authority and ruled that any blanks in Form ‘F’ constituted a substantive statutory violation that must be evaluated at trial. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

2. Core Legal Questions Formulated

The Supreme Court centered its review on whether the Magistrate was legally correct in taking cognizance of the offences, specifically evaluating:

1. Whether the District Civil Surgeon possessed the requisite statutory status of an “Appropriate Authority” under Section 17 and Section 28 of the PCPNDT Act to initiate criminal proceedings.
2. Whether deficiencies, omissions, or blank spaces left in the mandatory Form ‘F’ records can be excused as minor, technical, or inadvertent clerical errors that do not warrant criminal prosecution.
3. Legal Analysis &Ratio Decidendi of the Court

The Supreme Court systematically rejected both arguments raised by the appellant, anchoring its reasoning in the text, rules, and underlying social objectives of the PCPNDT Act:

1. Competence of the Appropriate Authority

The Court found no merit in the appellant’s challenge regarding the institutional authority of the complainant. Section 28(1)(a) of the Act strictly mandates that criminal courts can only take cognizance of PCPNDT offences based on a complaint filed by the “Appropriate Authority concerned”. The Bench noted that the government’s official notification dated May 15, 2015, explicitly designated the District Civil Surgeon to fulfill this role. Therefore, the institution of the complaint was completely valid and executed within full compliance of the law.

1. The Absolute and Non-Dilutable Sanctity of Form ‘F’

The appellant’s core defense was that errors or blank entries in Form ‘F’ were technical lapses devoid of criminal intent. The Supreme Court completely dismantled this proposition by analyzing Section 4(3) of the Act and its accompanying Rules. The proviso to Section 4(3) expressly creates a statutory presumption: any deficiency or inaccuracy found in the ultrasound records automatically amounts to a contravention of Section 5 or Section 6 of the Act unless the person conducting the sonography proves otherwise.

Synthesizing the authoritative three-judge bench decision in Federation of Obstetrics & Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI) v. Union of India (2019), the Court crystallized the following principles:

• Springboard for Misconduct: The maintenance of detailed medical histories, signatures, and patient declarations in Form ‘F’ is the primary mechanism to trace whether a clinic is secretly conducting illegal sex-determination tests. Compromising or leaving blanks in these records is a standalone substantive offence, not a trivial clerical error, because poor record-keeping serves as a “springboard” for female foeticide.
• Mandatory Application: The complete contents of Form ‘F’ are absolute and non-negotiable. Any dilution of these record-keeping requirements would paralyze the implementation of the Act and relegate the right to life of the unborn girl child under Article 21 of the Constitution to a mere formality. The exact extent, intention, and nature of the lapses are matters to be determined during a full trial, not at the stage of taking cognizance.

1. Empirical Assessment of the Sex Ratio and State Interventions

The Court integrated extensive empirical data to demonstrate why structural judicial complacency cannot be tolerated under this Act. It noted that while India’s overall sex ratio showed improvement in the National Family Health Survey-5 (1,020 females per 1,000 males), the critical sex ratio at birth stood at an unnatural 929 females per 1,000 males—well below the natural biological baseline of 950. Furthermore, Sample Registration System (SRS) data across the 2015–2024 periods revealed sharp imbalances, and the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report 2025 indicated a decline in India’s gender parity ranking to 131 out of 148 countries.

The Court meticulously cataloged the widespread welfare schemes deployed by Central and State Governments to combat the systemic bias against the girl child:

The Bench concluded that the existence of these extensive, ongoing financial and educational interventions across the country highlights that the systemic devaluation of women is still an active threat[cite: 17]. Until a profound societal shift occurs where the preference for a male child disappears, the uncompromising and strict enforcement of the regulatory checks in the PCPNDT Act remains an absolute constitutional necessity[cite: 17].

4. Decretal Directions & Final Order

• Appeal Dismissed: Finding the appeal completely bereft of any structural or legal merit, the Supreme Court dismissed it, upholding the concurrent judgments of the Bombay High Court and the Revisional Court[cite: 17].
• Magistrate Order Upheld: The order dated June 9, 2016, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ardhapur, taking cognizance and issuing criminal process against the appellant is declared fully valid and sustained[cite: 17].
• Disposal of Applications: All pending interlocutory applications are formally ordered to be disposed of, clearing the case for an immediate trial on its merits[cite: 17].

2026 INSC 635

Dr. Ramesh  V. State of Maharashtra And Another (D.O.J. 11.06.2026)

2026 INSC 635 click here to view full text of judgment