Case at a Glance
Answering three questions certified by the Allahabad High Court, the Supreme Court held that offences under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 are to be investigated by the Appropriate Authority, not the police. The police can at best play a supplemental role under the Authority’s supervision, and a Magistrate cannot take cognizance of a PCPNDT offence on a police chargesheet, because Section 28 permits cognizance only on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority or a person authorised by the Act. Police powers over independent IPC/BNS offences arising from the same facts are unaffected. The matter was remanded to the High Court for decision in line with the judgment.
The case began when the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr, acting as the Appropriate Authority under the PCPNDT Act, received information about illegal sex determination. The Tehsildar of Khurja was deputed as Authorised Officer to conduct a decoy operation, and a raid on a hospital followed. FIR No. 628 of 2017 was registered, and a chargesheet was filed under Sections 315 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 5(2), 6(a), 23 and 25 of the PCPNDT Act.
Brij Pal Singh moved the Allahabad High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A Single Judge accepted the quashing petition, but, noting conflicting views across High Courts, certified the case for appeal under Article 134-A read with Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution on three questions: whether an FIR can be registered for PCPNDT offences merely because they are cognizable and non-bailable; whether the police can investigate them and, if not, who can; and whether a Magistrate can take cognizance on a police chargesheet. The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed. The Supreme Court appointed Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta as amicus curiae and heard the Union of India and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare as well.
The Key Question Before the Court
Since Section 27 of the PCPNDT Act makes its offences cognizable and non-bailable, can the police register an FIR, investigate and file a chargesheet on which a Magistrate can take cognizance — or is investigation reserved for the Appropriate Authority and cognizance limited to a complaint under Section 28?
How the Court Reconciled Section 27 With Section 28
In the principal judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Karol, the Court read the Act as a special law with its own machinery. Section 17(4) makes the investigation of complaints the duty of the Appropriate Authority, and Rule 18A(3)(iv) of the PCPNDT Rules — which the Court held has statutory force — requires the Authority, “as far as possible”, not to involve the police, because cases under the Act are tried as complaint cases. Section 28 is prohibitory and jurisdictional: courts can take cognizance only on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority or an authorised officer, or by a person who has given the prescribed notice. The Court rejected the argument that the words “cognizable” and “non-bailable” in Section 27 open the door to police investigation, holding that it “cannot allow the words ‘cognizable’ and ‘non-bailable’ in Section 27 to water down” the Act’s object, particularly given Section 28, which provides “the mandatory and exclusive procedure for cognizance”. It also considered Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 11 SC CK 0065 on registration of FIRs and held that it does not override this special scheme.
The Court drew support from comparable statutes — the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and others — and from rulings such as Jeewan Kumar Raut v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2009) 07 SC CK 0038 and Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma, (2020) 08 SC CK 0041. It concluded that the Appropriate Authority is the only competent investigator under the Act and that the police may act only in a supplemental capacity, which also serves the Act’s aim of protecting doctors from harassment, while there is no restriction on police powers for IPC offences. In a concurring opinion, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh added that one transaction may open two parallel tracks — “The existence of a common factual transaction does not merge the above distinct statutory routes” — and, relying on State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay, cautioned that the police cannot “use the general offence as a gateway to take over the PC & PNDT inquiry.”
What the Court Actually Held
- The police are “not meant to be the investigators for the purpose of this Act”; an FIR, once registered, cannot be carried to its conclusion under the Act’s procedures. This restriction applies only to PCPNDT offences, not to independent IPC/BNS offences.
- Investigation of complaints under the Act is the responsibility of the Appropriate Authority under Section 17(4); the police “cannot be the main investigating authority” and may at best play a supplemental role under the Authority’s supervision.
- Section 28 imposes a complete statutory embargo: “The competent Magistrate shall not be able to take cognizance upon the filing of a chargesheet.”
- The reference was answered accordingly, the matter was remanded to the High Court to decide in accordance with the judgment, and the appeal was disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It settles a long-running split among High Courts on whether police can investigate PCPNDT offences and file chargesheets.
- Prosecutions under the Act built on police FIRs and chargesheets now face a clear cognizance bar under Section 28; Appropriate Authorities must investigate and file complaints themselves.
- It preserves police power over independent offences (such as IPC/BNS offences) arising from the same facts, and the concurrence gives practical guidance on how the two tracks should coordinate.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Appropriate Authorities and Prosecutors
- Investigation of PCPNDT offences, including decoy operations, searches and seizures, must be led and recorded by the Appropriate Authority or its authorised officer.
- Prosecution must begin with a complaint under Section 28; a police chargesheet is not a valid basis for cognizance of PCPNDT offences.
- Police help should ordinarily be sought by specific request and recorded; the concurrence notes the Authority “cannot abdicate its functions”.
For Defence Counsel
- Where a Magistrate has taken cognizance of PCPNDT offences on a police chargesheet, the Section 28 bar answered in this judgment is a strong ground of challenge.
- Check whether police investigation went beyond the supplemental role permitted, or used an IPC/BNS offence as a gateway to investigate the PCPNDT component.
- Remember that IPC/BNS charges with distinct ingredients may still be investigated by the police and survive.
Key Takeaways
- The Appropriate Authority, not the police, is the investigator for offences under the PCPNDT Act.
- Section 27 (cognizable and non-bailable) does not override Section 28’s exclusive route to cognizance by complaint.
- Rule 18A(3)(iv), which asks Authorities to avoid involving the police as far as possible, has statutory force.
- Police retain full powers over distinct IPC/BNS offences arising from the same transaction, but must pass PCPNDT material to the Authority.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the police register an FIR for sex determination under the PCPNDT Act?
The Court held that the police are not the investigators under the Act and that an FIR, once registered, cannot be taken to its conclusion under the Act’s procedures. Information disclosing only a PCPNDT offence should be passed to the Appropriate Authority, as the concurring opinion explains.
Who can file a case in court for a PCPNDT offence?
Under Section 28, a court takes cognizance only on a complaint made by the Appropriate Authority or an officer authorised by it, or by a person who has given the notice the section requires. A Magistrate cannot take cognizance on a police chargesheet.
What about IPC or BNS offences in the same incident?
The restriction applies only to offences under the PCPNDT Act. The police can investigate independent IPC/BNS offences arising from the same facts, but must inform the Appropriate Authority of any PCPNDT component and cannot use the general offence to take over that inquiry.
Conclusion
The ruling gives the PCPNDT Act a single, specialist enforcement route. The Appropriate Authority investigates, and prosecution begins with its complaint; the police support it but do not take its place. The Court saw this not as a weakening of the fight against sex selection but as giving effect to Parliament’s chosen design, which also protects medical practitioners from harassment while keeping police powers over ordinary crimes intact.
Practical takeaway: In any PCPNDT prosecution, first check who investigated and how cognizance was taken. A case resting on a police FIR and chargesheet for Act offences is open to challenge under Section 28, while an Authority-led complaint remains the correct path.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com