Female Foeticide A Moral Blight: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Parents, Radiologist In Sex Determination And Abortion Case

The Court was hearing two petitions seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings arising from the same set of facts. One petition challenged the registration of an FIR alleging offences under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, while the other petition sought quashing of criminal proceedings initiated under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, against a radiologist who had conducted the ultrasound scan.

A Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while declining interference, underscored: “this Court cannot be oblivious to the larger societal malaise that forms the backdrop of the present case. Female foeticide is not merely a statutory offence; it is a moral blight and a constitutional affront. The Apex Court has repeatedly underscored that leniency, at the threshold in such matters, risks rendering the law a dead letter and emboldening those who trade in gender discrimination under the cloak of medical expertise”.

Background

According to the complaint lodged by the District Health and Family Welfare Officer, a woman who was pregnant with her third child allegedly sought to determine the sex of the foetus. The couple already had two daughters and allegedly approached acquaintances to arrange a scan for sex determination.

The complaint stated that intermediaries coordinated with agents who allegedly arranged for the pregnant woman to undergo an ultrasound scan at a hospital. As part of the arrangement, instructions were allegedly given to write the name of one of the agents on the woman’s hand to indicate that the scan had been pre-arranged through the network, facilitating illegal sex determination.

After the scan was conducted, it was allegedly communicated through intermediaries that the foetus was female. The complaint further alleged that monetary negotiations took place and medication was subsequently administered to terminate the pregnancy. The woman reportedly developed severe bleeding later the same night and was taken to the hospital, where it was confirmed that the foetus had died.

Based on these events, a complaint was registered alleging offences including acts intended to prevent a child from being born alive under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and violations of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. Parallel proceedings were also initiated under the PCPNDT Act against the radiologist and other individuals allegedly involved in facilitating sex determination and the subsequent abortion.

The petitioners sought the quashing of the proceedings on several grounds. It was argued that the radiologist had merely conducted a scan and had not disclosed the sex of the foetus. The allegations, according to the petitioners, were based largely on hearsay and lacked corroborative material.

It was also contended that mandatory procedural safeguards under the PCPNDT Act had not been followed before initiation of proceedings and that the order taking cognisance did not demonstrate proper application of mind by the Magistrate.

Other petitioners argued that they had no role in the alleged acts and that there was no material connecting them to the commission of any offence.

Court’s Observation

The Court held that the complaint and accompanying materials disclosed a detailed and coherent sequence of events which, if accepted at face value, constituted the ingredients of the alleged offences.

It noted that the complaint narrated a chain of coordinated actions beginning with the couple’s attempt to determine the sex of the foetus and leading to consultations with intermediaries, referral to agents, performance of an ultrasound scan and subsequent administration of abortion-inducing medication.

The Court observed that the allegations suggested the involvement of several individuals performing distinct roles within what appeared to be an organised network facilitating sex determination and termination of pregnancy. Some individuals allegedly acted as intermediaries, others as agents who arranged patients and conveyed information, while medical professionals allegedly played a role in conducting the scan and enabling the disclosure of the foetal sex.

According to the Court, the materials indicated that the couple, already parents of two daughters, had embarked upon a deliberate effort to determine the sex of the unborn child. This attempt, rooted in gender bias, allegedly triggered a series of clandestine consultations and medical interventions culminating in the termination of the foetus.

The Court observed that the accused persons could not at this preliminary stage be treated as isolated actors or passive participants. The allegations pointed to a cumulative design in which each accused was said to have played a part in enabling the unlawful acts.

The Court held that at the stage of considering a petition for quashing, it was not permissible to dissect the allegations in isolation or to assess the credibility of evidence as would be done during a trial. The truthfulness of the allegations and the individual roles of the accused could only be tested during trial proceedings.

The Court further rejected the argument that the order taking cognisance suffered from non-application of the mind. It was observed that the Magistrate had examined the complaint and accompanying materials and had recorded satisfaction that sufficient prima facie grounds existed to proceed against the accused. At the stage of cognisance, the Court emphasised, a detailed evaluation of evidence is neither required nor permissible.

The Court also highlighted the broader social context in which the case arose. Referring to Supreme Court precedent, it observed that female foeticide represents a deeply entrenched social problem driven by patriarchal preferences for male children.

The Court noted that the PCPNDT Act was enacted to curb the misuse of medical technology for sex determination, leading to female foeticide. Such practices, the Court observed, have serious consequences for society and undermine the constitutional principles of equality and dignity.

The Court emphasised that granting leniency at the threshold stage in such cases would risk weakening enforcement of the law and emboldening those engaged in illegal sex determination and sex-selective abortions.

Conclusion

In light of the materials on record and the seriousness of the allegations, the Court held that interference at the stage of quashing would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution at its inception.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petitions seeking quashing of the FIR and the criminal proceedings, while clarifying that the observations made in the order were confined to the limited purpose of deciding the petitions and would not prejudice the trial.

Cause Title: Sardamma Dasegowda & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.; Dr Shashi S.L. v. District Appropriate Authority

Appearances

Petitioners: Hemanth Kumar K., Advocate, Shridhara K., Advocate

Respondents: B. N. Jagadeesha, Additional State Public Prosecutor

Click here to read/download Judgment