The Supreme Court has held that a sting operation ordered by a single member of the District Appropriate Authority is legally unsustainable, rendering subsequent criminal prosecution void.
The bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has quashed the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had refused to quash the complaint proceedings.
The case arose from a 2015 sting operation conducted in Gurugram following a complaint alleging illegal pre-natal sex determination. A decoy pregnant woman was allegedly sent to a diagnostic centre after Rs. 25,000 was paid to a co-accused, Dr. Abdul Kadir. The prosecution claimed that an ultrasound was conducted by Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg without complying with statutory requirements under the PCPNDT Act, including proper maintenance of records and filling of Form F.
An FIR was initially registered against both doctors. However, after investigation, the police filed a discharge application stating that no incriminating material had been found against Dr. Garg. The trial court accepted the application and discharged him in October 2015. Thereafter, in 2018, the District Appropriate Authority filed a complaint under Sections 4, 5, 6 and 29 of the PCPNDT Act read with the relevant Rules, leading to a summoning order. The High Court dismissed Dr. Garg’s petition seeking quashing of the complaint, prompting the appeal before the Supreme Court.
The principal legal issue before the Court was whether the sting operation had been validly authorized. Under Section 17 of the PCPNDT Act, the District Appropriate Authority in Haryana comprised three members: the Civil Surgeon (Chairperson), the District Programme Officer, and the District Attorney. However, the order directing the raid was issued solely by the Civil Surgeon acting individually, without any material to show collective decision-making by the Authority.
Dr. Garg relied upon the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, where it was held that the power to authorize search and seizure under Section 30 of the PCPNDT Act must be exercised by the Appropriate Authority collectively. A unilateral decision by a single member, even if that member is the Chairperson, was held to be illegal and sufficient to vitiate the entire prosecution.
The State argued that there had been substantial compliance and that the subsequent recommendation of the District Advisory Committee cured any defect. It further contended that the PCPNDT Act is a social welfare legislation intended to combat female foeticide and should not be defeated on technical grounds. In support, reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s observations in Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies of India v. Union of India, where strict enforcement of the Act was emphasized.
The Supreme Court, however, held that while the objective of the PCPNDT Act is undeniably of great social importance, statutory safeguards cannot be diluted. The Court observed that the power to authorize a search is a drastic one and must strictly conform to the procedure prescribed by law. In the absence of evidence that the District Appropriate Authority had collectively decided to conduct the raid, the authorization was legally defective. Since the complaint was founded upon the search and materials collected during that raid, the proceedings stood vitiated.
The Court also clarified that although discharge in FIR proceedings does not automatically bar a statutory complaint under Section 28 of the PCPNDT Act, continuation of prosecution based on an illegal search would amount to abuse of the process of law.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and quashed the complaint and summoning order against Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg. The judgment reinforces the principle that even in the enforcement of social welfare legislation, authorities must adhere strictly to statutory procedure and collective decision-making requirements.
Case Details
Case Title: Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg Versus State Of Haryana And Ors.
Citation: JURISHOUR-66-SC-2026
Case No.: SLP (CRIMINAL) NO. 5915 OF 2025
Date: 23/02/2026
Read More: Insurer Not Liable for Penalty U/s 4A(3)(b) of Employees’ Compensation Act: Supreme Court
