Government of Maharashtra Medical Superintendent and Taluka Appropriate Through Dr N R Salunkhe vs Dr Rajani Mahadeo Rathod — 54/2025
Case under Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules Section 6,23,24,5,6(2),9(1),(4)(6)(7),10(1-A),17-1-2. Status: Awaiting Summons. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHWS070004362025
Next Hearing
19th June 2026
e-Filing Number
24-02-2025
Filing Number
337/2025
Filing Date
25-02-2025
Registration No
54/2025
Registration Date
25-02-2025
Court
Civil Court Junior Division, Karanja
Judge
2-Jt.Civil Judge Jr. Dn. and J.M.F.C Karanja
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Maharashtra Medical Superintendent and Taluka Appropriate Through Dr N R Salunkhe
Respondent(s)
Dr Rajani Mahadeo Rathod
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt.Civil Judge Jr. Dn. and J.M.F.C Karanja
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
Awaiting Summons
Order
Order
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-05-2026 | Awaiting Summons |
| 27-04-2026 | Awaiting Summons |
| 16-03-2026 | Awaiting Summons |
| 11-03-2026 | Order |
| 09-03-2026 | Order |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: RCC 54/2025 The court found prima facie evidence that Dr. Rajani Mahadeo Rathod (Accused 1) and four co-accused were conducting illegal pre-natal sex determination procedures in violation of the PCPNDT Act, 1994. The raid revealed the accused charged ₹20,000-25,000 for sex determination services and failed to maintain mandatory records including Form-F. The court issued process and ordered summons against all five accused under Sections 5, 6, 23, 25, and 22(1)(2) of the PCPNDT Act read with Rules 9-10 of the PCPNDT Rules, 1996. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: RCC 54/2025 The court found prima facie evidence that Dr. Rajani Mahadeo Rathod (Accused 1) and four co-accused were conducting illegal pre-natal sex determination procedures in violation of the PCPNDT Act, 1994. The raid revealed the accused charged ₹20,000-25,000 for sex determination services and failed to maintain mandatory records including Form-F. The court issued process and ordered summons against all five accused under Sections 5, 6, 23, 25, and 22(1)(2) of the PCPNDT Act read with Rules 9-10 of the PCPNDT Rules, 1996. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts