Judgment : This writ petition is filed seeking quashment of Criminal Case bearing R.C.C. No.422 of 2011, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded, for offences punishable under sections 4(3), 5, 23, 29 & 30 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection Act), 1994 (for short "the Act"). 2. The petitioner is the accused. It is common ground that the petitioner is a Gynecologist and practicing at Nanded, since 2004. It is further common ground that, the petitioner has ultrasound clinic at Nanded registered under the Act. It is common ground that till 31.03.2011, the Authorities under the Act inspected the ultra-sound clinic from time to time and found the same to be in order. On 31.03.2011, the "Appropriate Authority" appointed under the Act, visited the petitioner's clinic and found following irregularities :- (i) The petitioner/accused did not put her signature on Form "F" of patients who were examined between 20.01.2011 to 04.03.2011. (ii) Form "F" of patients who were examined between 04.03.2011 to 30.03.2011 were found blank except the signature of patients on consent-cum-declaration annexed to it. (iii) The petitioner-accused did not fill up Form "F" in respect of sr.no.7. Because of these irregularities, the Appropriate Authority lodged the complaint. It is not a case where decoy case was sent for collecting evidence. 3. In presence of learned Counsels for the parties, I directed the record seized at the petitioner's clinic to be opened and found a register of form "F". With the help of the learned Counsel and representatives of the parties, I perused the record to examine whether the allegations are truthful and if any irregularity would amount to offence under the Act. 4. In order to appreciate the submissions made at the bar as well as to find out whether prima facie case is made out against the petitioner/accused, the relevant provisions of Act should be read. Sections 4 & 5 of the said Act read as under :- "4. 4. In order to appreciate the submissions made at the bar as well as to find out whether prima facie case is made out against the petitioner/accused, the relevant provisions of Act should be read. Sections 4 & 5 of the said Act read as under :- "4. Regulation of pre-natal diagnostic techniques.-On and from the commencement of this Act,- (1) no place including a registered Genetic Counselling Centre or Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic shall be used or caused to be used by any person for conducting prenatal diagnostic techniques except for the purposes specified in clause (2) and after satisfying any of the conditions specified in clause (3); (2) no pre-natal diagnostic techniques shall be conducted except for the purposes of detection of any of the following abnormalities, namely:- (i) chromosomal abnormalities; (ii) genetic metabolic diseases; (iii) haemoglobinopathies; (iv) sex-linked genetic diseases; (v) congenital anomalies; (vi) any other abnormalities or diseases as may be specified by the Central Supervisory Board; (3) no pre-natal diagnostic techniques shall be used or conducted unless the person qualified to do so is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that any of the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:- (i) age of the pregnant woman is above thirty-five years; (ii) the pregnant woman has undergone of two or more spontaneous abortions or foetal loss; (iii) the pregnant woman had been exposed to potentially teratogenic agents such as drugs, radiation, infection or chemicals; (iv) the pregnant woman or her spouse has a family history of mental retardation or physical deformities such as, spasticity or any other genetic disease; (v) any other condition as may be specified by the Central Supervisory Board; Provided that the person conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman shall keep complete record thereof in the clinic in such manner, as may be prescribed, and any deficiency or inaccuracy found therein shall amount to contravention of provisions of section 5 or section 6 unless contrary is proved by the person conducting such ultrasonography; Provided that the person conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman shall keep complete record thereof in the clinic in such manner, as may be prescribed, and any deficiency or inaccuracy found therein shall amount to contravention of provisions of section 5 or section 6 unless contrary is proved by the person conducting such ultrasonography. (4) no person including a relative or husband of the pregnant woman shall seek or encourage the conduct of any pre-natal diagnostic techniques on her except for the purposes specified in clause (2); (5) no person including a relative or husband of a woman shall seek or encourage the conduct of any sex-selection technique on her or him or both." "5. Written consent of pregnant woman and prohibition of communicating the sex of foetus. (1) No person referred to in clause (2) of section 3 shall conduct the prenatal diagnostic procedures unless- (a) he has explained all known side and after effects of such procedures to the pregnant woman concerned; (b) he has obtained in the prescribed form her written consent to undergo such procedures in the language which she understands; and (c) a copy of her written consent obtained under clause (b) is given to the pregnant woman. (2) No person including the person conducting pre-natal diagnostic procedures shall communicate to the pregnant woman concerned or her relatives or any other person the sex of the foetus by words, signs or in any other manner. 5. One must also see the format of the form 'F' which is annexed to the rules. Basic mandates of these provisions can be listed as follows:- Pre-natal diagnostic procedure means all gynecology and obstetric procedure, such as ultra-sonography, etc. Pre-natal diagnostic technique includes all pre-natal diagnostic procedures and tests. Pre-natal diagnostic technique shall be used or conducted only by a person qualified to do so. Pre-natal diagnostic technique should be conducted only for the purposes of certain abnormalities mentioned in subsection (2) of section 4. Pre-natal diagnostic technique should be used or conducted only if the qualified person is satisfied as provided in section 3. The person conducting ultra-sonography on pregnant women should keep complete record in the clinic in the manner as prescribed under the rules. Any deficiency or any inaccuracy found in such record should amount to contravention of provisions of section 5 or 6 of the Act. Unless contrary is proved by the person conducting such ultra-sonography. Relatives or husbands of pregnant women should not seek or encourage conduct of pre-natal diagnostic technique except for the purposes specified in sub-section (2). Relatives or husbands of the pregnant women should not seek or encourage conduct of any sex selection technique on her etc. Unless contrary is proved by the person conducting such ultra-sonography. Relatives or husbands of pregnant women should not seek or encourage conduct of pre-natal diagnostic technique except for the purposes specified in sub-section (2). Relatives or husbands of the pregnant women should not seek or encourage conduct of any sex selection technique on her etc. Qualified person before conducting pre-natal diagnostic procedure, such as ultrasonography, should explain side effects of such procedure to pregnant woman. He/ she should obtain her consent in writing in the prescribed form. He/she should give copy of consent so recorded to the pregnant woman. The qualified person conducting pre-natal diagnostic procedure should not communicate to the pregnant woman or her relative or any other person the sex of foetus by word, sign or any other manner. No Genetic Counselling Center, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic should conduct pre-natal diagnostic technique for determining sex of the foetus. 6. In addition to this, one should also peruse contents of format of form "F". The form is annexed with "important notes". It provides a representative list of indications for ultrasound during pregnancy. The list is as under:- 1) To diagnose intra-uterine and/or ectopic pregnancy and confirm viability. 2) Estimation of gestational age (dating). 3) Detection of number of foetuses and their chorionicity. 4) Suspected pregnancy with IUCD in-situ or suspected pregnancy following contraceptive failure/MTP failure. 5) Vaginal bleeding / leaking. 6) Follow-up of cases of abortion. 7) Assessment of cervical canal and diameter of internal os. 8) Discrepancy between uterine size and period of amenorrhoea. 9) Any suspected adenexal or uterine pathology / abnormality. 10) Detection of chromosomal abnormalities, foetal structural defects and other abnormalities and their follow-up. 11) To evaluate foetal presentation and position. 12) Assessment of liquor amnii. 13) Preterm labour/preterm premature rupture of membranes. 14) Evaluation of placental position, thickness, grading and abnormalities (placenta praevia, retroplacental haemorrhage, abnormal adherence etc.). 15) Evaluation of umbilical cord -presentation, insertion, nuchal encirclement, number of vessels and presence of true knot. 16) Evaluation of previous Caesarean Section scars. 17) Evaluation of foetal growth parameters, foetal weight and foetal well being. 18) Colour flow mapping and duplex Doppler studies. 19) Ultrasound guided procedures such as medical termination of pregnancy, external cephalic version etc. and their follow-up. 16) Evaluation of previous Caesarean Section scars. 17) Evaluation of foetal growth parameters, foetal weight and foetal well being. 18) Colour flow mapping and duplex Doppler studies. 19) Ultrasound guided procedures such as medical termination of pregnancy, external cephalic version etc. and their follow-up. 20) Adjunct to diagnostic and therapeutic invasive interventions such as chorionic villus sampling (CVS), amniocenteses, foetal blood sampling, foetal skin biopsy, amnioinfusion, intrauterine infusion, placement of shunts etc. 21) Observation of intra-partum events. 22) Medical/surgical conditions complicating pregnancy. 23) Research/scientific studies in recognised institutions. 7. On perusal of the form including the important note quoted above, it becomes clear that the petitioner was under obligation to mention in the form as to why she decided to examine the pregnant woman patients with ultrasound technique. 8. On perusal of the report, the main allegation against the present petitioner is that she did not sign form "F" of patients who were examined by her between 20th January, 2011 to 31st March, 2011. In some cases, she did not even sign the consent-cum-declaration of the patients. I perused the original record and confirmed this shortcoming in completing the record of patients in form "F". However, the petitioner/accused very clearly mentioned in the Petition that she has been sending the information of each patient online to the authorities appointed under the Act on day-today basis. I perused copy one of the forms so filled up online and found that all relevant information is filled up in it. This assertion of the petitioner has not been denied by the respondent -State in their reply. Filling up all form "F" in all respect is mandatory and contravention of the same would amount to contravention of Section 5 and 6 of the Act. The record shows that the State of Maharashtra started website by name www.savethebabygirl.com from 10th May, 2010. It is also common ground that this website is accessible by Gynecologist, Radiologist and Director of the clinic registered under the Act with their secret password. The State encouraged them to log on to this site and fill up form "F" every day of the patients they had examined. It is also common ground that this scheme is voluntary and is initiated in Nanded district some time prior to June, 2010. The Collector of Nanded acknowledged the fact that the petitioner here has been filling up information of her patients, online every day. It is also common ground that this scheme is voluntary and is initiated in Nanded district some time prior to June, 2010. The Collector of Nanded acknowledged the fact that the petitioner here has been filling up information of her patients, online every day. A letter dated 4th June, 2010 written by the Collector is placed on record and is not denied by the State. Pursuant to this information that has come on record, I asked learned counsel for the petitioner to show me the information of patient, the petitioner was posting online every day. A printed copy of such information is shown to me and I find that the information is filled up in Form F". It is thus clear that the petitioner stated that she has been filling up the form "F" online and sending the same to the authorities under the Act on daily basis. If the petitioner alone could send this information online the authenticity of the same cannot be doubted and is not doubted. In this back ground one must examine as to how much importance to the filled up forms "F" should be given. No doubt as said above, the filling up of such forms and maintaining the record in clinic is mandatory and failure to do so would amount to contravention of Sections 5 and 6 of the Act. But the question is, whether in this case the complainant was entitled to prosecute the petitioner for not maintaining the record properly? The answer is in negative. The first objection that the petitioner did not put her signature on the forms is insignificant in view of the fact that the petitioner herself is posting the said information online of each patient on daily basis. Since this could be done only by her or only by her command, lack of signature on the form makes no difference to the responsibility of the petitioner for keeping the record complete. The petitioner's signature on the forms is necessary because she would not deny her responsibility of the test she had undertaken on the patient. Since this could be done only by her or only by her command, lack of signature on the form makes no difference to the responsibility of the petitioner for keeping the record complete. The petitioner's signature on the forms is necessary because she would not deny her responsibility of the test she had undertaken on the patient. If after examination, the petitioner posted the relevant information in Form "F" online her personal signature on the form is not at all necessary and even if it is said that it is necessary to complete the record, the lapse would not amount of contravention of provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Act. The patients admittedly have signed the consent-cum-declaration form in all these cases. This part of the form is not capable of being conveyed online and for that physical copy of consent-cum-declaration with signature of patient is necessary and such physical copy of consent-cum-declaration is available on record. Even if such consent-cum-declaration is not signed by doctor for similar reasons mentioned above, the same can be dispensed with or cannot be taken and/or absence of the same cannot be held to be contravention of Sections 5 and 6. 9. The main thrust of the submission of learned APP in these aspects of the case is that, according to him, as soon as the patient is examined, the form "F" should be completely filled up in all respects. In support of this, he placed reliance on Rule 9 of the Rules. Rule 9 of the Rules reads as under : "9. Maintenance and preservation of record. -(1) Every Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic, Ultrasound Clinic and Imaging Centres shall maintain a register showing, in serial order, the names and addresses of the men or women given genetic counselling, subjected to pre-natal diagnostic procedures or prenatal diagnostic tests, the names of their spouse or father and the date on which they first reported for such counselling, procedure or test. (2) The record to be maintained by every Genetic Counselling Centre, in respect of each woman counselled shall be as specified in Form D. (3) The record to be maintained by every Genetic Laboratory, in respect of each man or woman subjected to any pre-natal diagnostic procedure/technique/test, shall be as specified in Form E. (4) The record to be maintained by every Genetic Clinic, in respect of each man or woman subjected to any pre-natal diagnostic procedure/technique/test, shall be as specified in Form F. (5) The Appropriate Authority shall maintain a permanent record of applications for grant or renewal of certificate of registration as specified in Form H. Letters of intimation of every change of employee, place, address and equipment installed shall also be preserved a permanent records. (6) All case-related records, forms of consent, laboratory results, microscopic pictures, sonographic plates or slides, recommendations and letters shall be preserved by the Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic for a period of two years from the date of completion of counselling, pre-natal diagnostic procedure or prenatal diagnostic test, as the case may be. In the event of any legal proceedings, the records shall be preserved till the final disposal of legal proceedings, or till the expiry of the said period of two years, whichever is later. (7) In case the Genetic Counselling Centre or Genetic Laboratory of Genetic Clinic maintains records on computer or other electronic equipment a printed copy of the record shall be taken and preserved after authentication by a person responsible for such record. (8) Every Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic, Ultrasound Clinic and Imaging Centres shall send a complete report in respect of all pre-conception or pregnancy related procedures/techniques/tests conducted by them in respect of each month by 5th day of the following month to the concerned Appropriate Authority." Since we are concerned with form "F", we are concerned with sub-rule 4 and 8. The sub-rule 4 r/w proviso to sub section 3 of section 4 of the Act requires a doctor to keep record of each man or woman subjected to Pre-natal Diagnostic Procedural or Test in form "F". The record should be kept in form "F". The record should be kept in form of register showing serial order, name, addresses of the patient etc. The record should be kept in form "F". The record should be kept in form of register showing serial order, name, addresses of the patient etc. Sub-Rule 8 requires a doctor to send monthly report in respect of patients examined by him during the month. The report is required to be sent on or before 5th day of every month. This means that by 5th of April, 2011, the petitioner/accused in this case was expected to send his monthly report of the month of March, 2011. Rule 9 does not anywhere indicate that the form "F" should be filled up immediately after examination of a patient. All that is required to be done before the examination is obtaining consent of the patient concerned. Such consent can be taken on consent-cum-declaration part of the Form "F". A Doctor should first explain to the patient as to the need of obtaining her or his consent. After that he or she would examine the patient. But the filling up the form "F" can be postponed by a day or two after writing down the relevant information on a piece of paper elsewhere. Some doctors might follow the practice of getting forms filled up through their clerks or they themselves would fill up the form at the end of the day. Filling up the form thus is for completing the record of patient who is subjected to test etc. The information that is filled in such form can be written down elsewhere and it can be filled up properly without committing any error in the form finally. This facility to the doctor is available in view of the provisions of sub-rule 8. Doctor would be able to send monthly report only after he completes filling up of the forms of the patients which he examined throughout the month. It is only after completing that chore, he would prepare a report and sent it by 5th day of next month. The expectation of learned A.P.P. that the doctor must fill up the form immediately after examination etc. is rather far fetched and overzealous. The last allegation is about column No.7 of the Form F. It is alleged that the petitioner did not fill up the particulars in column no.7 of Form "F". The expectation of learned A.P.P. that the doctor must fill up the form immediately after examination etc. is rather far fetched and overzealous. The last allegation is about column No.7 of the Form F. It is alleged that the petitioner did not fill up the particulars in column no.7 of Form "F". The explanation of the petitioner/accused is similar to above that she had punctually entered the particulars in respect of item no.7 (referral information) in Form "F" when she filled up same online. On perusal of the copies of online Forms, this information is seen to have been filled up. Incidentally all the patients are referred by petitioner herself for Sonography. The petitioner admittedly is a Gynecologist and obviously she is required ultra-sound examination of her patients who are pregnant and expecting. Learned A.P.P. despite glaring anomalies in the case and the record of the case, instead that I should refer to two judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. K.M. Sharan, 2008 4 (SCC) 471 and in the case of State of A.P. Vs. Gourishetty Mahesh, 2010(11) SCC 226 . In both these cases, the Supreme Court has held that quashing of cases at threshold should as far as possible be avoided. The acceptability of the material to fasten culpability on the accused person is the matter of trial. At threshold level detail and minute examination of the prosecution case is not warranted. Learned A.P.P. is thus suggesting that what I did in this case was unnecessary. He suggested that I ought not to have gone into merits of the case and should have been satisfied with the complaint and the statements made in the complaint. I am afraid, this in my view is an exceptional case, where on the face of it and on casual perusal of the prosecution material, I noticed that it does not make out case against the petitioner. It is thus clear that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner/accused. Hence, the Criminal Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) and disposed of accordingly. The sealed record, which was opened on the direction of this Court, shall be re-sealed in the presence of Shirestedar of this Court.