Police Cannot Register FIR or Investigate PCPNDT Act Offences, Supreme Court Holds
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that the Appropriate Authority alone investigates PCPNDT offences, with police confined to a supplemental role.
The Supreme Court has settled a question that had divided several High Courts: whether police can register an FIR and investigate offences under the Pre-conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brij Pal Singh, a division bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that the police are not the intended investigators for offences under the Act. Investigation rests with the Appropriate Authority, and a Magistrate cannot take cognizance on a police chargesheet. The Court reasoned that the word “cognizable” in Section 27 cannot override the exclusive complaint route in Section 28. The reference was answered and the matter remanded to the Allahabad High Court.
How the reference reached the Court
The appeal arose from a certificate issued by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under Article 134-A read with Article 134(1)(c), concerning interpretation of the PCPNDT Act. The proceedings originated in a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashing of a chargesheet.
That chargesheet was drawn under Sections 315 and 511 of the IPC and Sections 4, 5(2), 6(a), 23 and 25 of the PCPNDT Act, flowing from FIR No. 628 of 2017. The FIR followed secret information received by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar, the appropriate authority under the Act, about illegal sex determination. The Tehsildar of Khurja was deputed as Authorised Officer to conduct a decoy operation, and a raid was carried out at the hospital.
The Single Judge who heard the quashing petition accepted it, but noted that High Courts had taken contrary views on the role of police in PCPNDT investigations. Three questions were framed on FIR registration, police investigation and cognizance on a police chargesheet.
What the Court held on police investigation
The Court held that Sections 27 and 28, read together with the socially beneficial nature of the Act, indicate that police are not meant to be the investigators for its offences. Section 17(4) places investigation of complaints with the Appropriate Authority. Rule 18A(3)(iv), which the Court held has statutory force, requires that police not be involved “as far as possible.”
The bench accepted the argument that the Act follows the complaint case route. It found that the “reason to believe” standard in Section 30(1) applies specifically to the Appropriate Authority, indicating that the Authority conducts the investigation. Section 30(2) applies the CrPC only to searches and seizures, showing that the legislature invoked the general code where it wished to.
The Court rejected the Union of India's submission that Section 28 restricts only the power to take cognizance. Provisions cannot be read in isolation. If police were permitted to investigate, any resulting chargesheet could not be acted upon by a Magistrate due to the bar in Section 28, rendering the exercise “nugatory in the eyes of law.”
Reasoning on cognizable, non-bailable and statutory interpretation
The Union argued that no word in a statute is surplus, so “cognizable” must carry its ordinary meaning of police investigation without court permission. The Court held that reading Section 27 that way would fall foul of the specialised scheme. Section 27 merely qualifies the offences; Section 28 provides the exclusive cognizance procedure.
The bench drew on comparable statutes. It noted that the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 contemplate a complete bar on police report-based cognizance, while the MMDR Act and the Wildlife (Protection) Act restrict police only for offences within those special laws. It relied on Jeewan Kumar Raut v. CBI, Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay.
On Lalita Kumari, the Court held that the mandatory duty to register an FIR does not apply here, because a preliminary inquiry can first ascertain whether police have jurisdiction to investigate at all. On the phrase “as far as possible” in Rule 18A(3)(iv), the Court applied State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan to hold it grants discretion to the Appropriate Authority to seek police assistance, not a licence for independent police investigation.
The Court noted safeguards within the Act: rules are laid before Parliament, the Authority acts on the advice of the Advisory Committee, and its chairman cannot act unilaterally. It found the Authority is not “an unregulated or unruly horse.”
Answers to the three questions
On the first question, the Court held that FIR registration for PCPNDT offences is not permissible merely because the offences are cognizable and non-bailable. The restriction applies only to offences under the Act and does not curb police power over independent offences under the IPC or BNS.
On the second, it held that Section 17(4) places investigation with the Appropriate Authority; police may play only a supplemental role, when required by the Authority and under its supervision.
On the third, it held that a Magistrate cannot take cognizance on a police chargesheet, given the statutory embargo in Section 28.
Concurring observations on overlapping offences
Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh concurred and added clarificatory directions for situations where a single transaction discloses both a PCPNDT offence and an IPC or BNS offence. He held that the two tracks do not merge: the Appropriate Authority investigates the PCPNDT component while police investigate a distinct penal offence.
Where information discloses only a PCPNDT contravention, police must make a diary entry and transmit the material to the Authority without commencing an independent investigation. Where a distinct cognizable IPC or BNS offence is also disclosed, police may investigate that offence while communicating the PCPNDT component to the Authority. Assistance sought by the Authority must remain supplemental, must be recorded, and can never be converted into an independent police investigation or a police chargesheet.
Order
The Court answered the reference accordingly and remanded the matter to the High Court to decide in accordance with the judgment. The appeal was disposed of along with pending applications. The judgment, dated 20 August 2026, was authored by Justice Sanjay Karol, with a concurring opinion by Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh. Ms. Mukta Gupta, senior counsel, was appointed amicus curiae.