Police barred from investigating PCPNDT offences; Only Appropriate Authority may probe | SC

The Supreme Court resolved long-standing uncertainty about the police’s role under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, holding that while a FIR may be lodged, the investigation is the exclusive domain of the Appropriate Authority and a magistrate cannot take cognizance on a police charge-sheet.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The State of Uttar Pradesh filed a criminal appeal (No. 2938 of 2025) against Dr. Brij Pal Singh and others. The matter arose from FIR No. 628 of 2017, lodged by the District Magistrate of Bulandshahar after a secret tip alleged illegal sex determination of a foetus at a hospital. The District Magistrate, as the Appropriate Authority under the PC & PNDT Act, directed a decoy operation, leading to a raid and the preparation of a chargesheet under Sections 315 and 511 of the IPC and Sections 4, 5(2), 6(a), 23 and 25 of the PC & PNDT Act.

Key Facts

• 2017: FIR 628 filed by District Magistrate (AA) alleging illegal sex determination.
• Decoy operation: Conducted by the Tehsildar of Khurja District as the authorised officer.
• Raid: Hospital premises searched; evidence collected.
• Chargesheet: Prepared against the respondents under IPC and PC & PNDT provisions.
• Quashing petition: The Single Judge of the High Court eventually quashed the chargesheet, interpreting the PC & PNDT provisions.
• 28 April 2026: Supreme Court appointed Ms. Mukta Gupta as amicus curiae and opened the floor for additional submissions.
• 20 August 2026: Judgment delivered, answering three certified questions.

Procedural History

• 2017: FIR lodged (FIR No. 628/2017).
• Date unspecified: Chargesheet filed under Sections 315, 511 IPC and PC & PNDT provisions.
• Date unspecified: Petition for quashing filed before the High Court.
• Single Judge judgment: Quashed the chargesheet and issued a certificate of appeal under Article 134-A.
• 2025: Criminal Appeal No. 2938 of 2025 filed before the Supreme Court.
• 28 April 2026: Order appointing amicus curiae.
• 20 August 2026: Supreme Court judgment delivered.

The Parties' Positions

• Appellant (State): Argues that the PC & PNDT Act’s cognizable nature obliges police to register FIRs and that police investigation is permissible; cites Lalita Kumari for mandatory FIR registration.
• Respondent (Dr Brij Pal Singh): Contends that Sections 27 and 28, read together, reserve investigation for the Appropriate Authority; police involvement is barred except as supplemental assistance.

Relief Sought

The State sought clarification on three points: (1) permissibility of FIR registration by police, (2) whether police may investigate PC & PNDT offences, and (3) whether a magistrate can take cognizance on a police-prepared chargesheet.

The Legal Issue

The central questions were: (1) Does the cognizable and non-bailable character of offences under the PC & PNDT Act automatically permit police to register an FIR and investigate? (2) Who is the competent investigative authority for violations of the Act? (3) Can a magistrate take cognizance of an offence under the Act on the basis of a police charge-sheet?

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant

• The State relied on the mandatory nature of FIR registration under Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. and argued that “cognizable” implies police jurisdiction to investigate.
• Submitted that Section 27’s classification as cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable necessarily triggers the general provisions of the CrPC, including police investigation.
• Emphasised that the absence of an express exclusion of police powers in the Act should be read to allow police investigation, especially where the offence also attracts IPC provisions.

For the Respondent

• Counsel highlighted Sections 27, 28 and 30, asserting that investigation is expressly vested in the Appropriate Authority (AA) under Section 17(4) and Section 17A.
• Cited Rule 18A(3)(iv) of the PC & PNDT Rules, describing the prohibition on police involvement as having statutory force.
• Argued that Section 28 creates a strict jurisdictional bar on courts taking cognizance except on a complaint by the AA, thereby precluding reliance on a police charge-sheet.
• Relied on a series of High Court precedents (e.g., Dr. Varsha Gautam, Dr. Rahul Malik) supporting the AA-centric investigative model.

The Court's Analysis

The Court began by interpreting the statutory scheme of the PC & PNDT Act. It observed that the Act is a special law and, under the principle that special law overrides general law, its procedural provisions must be given effect over the CrPC where they conflict.

"The language of the statute, more particularly Sections 27 and 28 of the Act when read together, in light of the other provisions and the socially beneficial nature of the Act ... indicates that the police are not meant to be the investigators for the purpose of this Act."

The Court examined the interplay of Sections 27 (cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable), 28 (exclusive cognizance on complaint), and 30 (search and seizure powers of the AA). It held that:

1. FIR registration - The cognizable label in Section 27 obliges the police to register an FIR when a complaint discloses a cognizable offence, consistent with Lalita Kumari. However, registration does not confer investigative jurisdiction over PC & PNDT offences.
2. Investigation - Section 17(4) and Section 17A expressly allocate investigative functions to the AA. Rule 18A(3)(iv) reinforces this allocation by directing that police involvement be avoided "as far as possible". The Court treated this rule as having statutory force, not merely directory.
3. Cognizance - Section 28 creates a jurisdictional bar on courts taking cognizance except on a complaint by the AA or a person giving 15-day notice. Consequently, a magistrate cannot rely on a police charge-sheet to initiate proceedings.
4. Dual-track scenario - Where the same factual transaction gives rise to both a PC & PNDT offence and an independent IPC offence, the Court clarified that the two investigative tracks remain distinct. The police may investigate the IPC component, while the AA must handle the PC & PNDT component, with only supplemental assistance permitted.
5. Precedent alignment - The Court distinguished High Court decisions that permitted police investigation by emphasizing the later provision (Section 28) as the controlling clause, following the rule that later provisions prevail over earlier contradictory ones.
6. Remedial direction - The matter was remanded to the High Court to apply the clarified principles.

The Verdict

The Supreme Court answered the three certified questions as follows:

1. FIR registration by police is permissible, but police investigation of PC & PNDT offences is not; investigation belongs to the Appropriate Authority.
2. Police investigation is impermissible for PC & PNDT offences; the AA may seek police assistance only in a supplemental capacity.
3. A magistrate cannot take cognizance of a PC & PNDT offence on the basis of a police charge-sheet; cognizance is limited to complaints filed by the AA or a qualified person. The appeal was disposed of, and the case was remanded to the High Court for further orders consistent with this judgment.

What This Means For Similar Cases

FIR Registration Does Not Imply Police Investigation

• Practitioners must advise clients that while an FIR can be lodged for a PC & PNDT allegation, the subsequent investigation must be undertaken by the Appropriate Authority, not the police.
• Police diaries should reflect the transmission of the FIR to the AA without initiating an independent probe.

Appropriate Authority Holds Exclusive Investigative Power

• Counsel should file complaints directly with the AA under Section 28(b) when feasible, ensuring the 15-day notice requirement is satisfied.
• Requests for police assistance must be documented as supplemental and must be initiated by the AA, not the police.

Dual-Track for IPC and PC & PNDT Offences

• When the same transaction triggers both a PC & PNDT offence and an IPC offence, maintain separate investigative files.

• Police may pursue the IPC component freely, but must refer any PC & PNDT material to the AA.

• Coordination protocols should be established to avoid jurisdictional overlap.

• Actionable takeaways:

  • File a formal complaint with the AA before any police investigation begins.
  • Record in police diaries that the matter has been referred to the AA.
  • Seek written request from the AA before involving police for assistance.
  • Ensure magistrates are presented with a complaint under Section 28, not a police charge-sheet.