The Supreme Court has held that police cannot register an FIR and act as the main investigating authority for offences under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, ruling that investigations under the law are primarily the responsibility of the Appropriate Authority constituted under the Act.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh delivered the judgment while examining the scope of police powers under the PC-PNDT Act. The Court also held that a competent magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence under the Act merely on the basis of a chargesheet filed after a police investigation.
The case arose from an Allahabad High Court judgment dated September 30, 2024, which referred three questions to the Supreme Court concerning the relationship between Sections 27 and 28 of the PC-PNDT Act.
Appropriate Authority Must Lead Investigation
Section 27 of the Act declares offences under the law to be cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable. Section 28, however, provides that a court can take cognizance only on a complaint made by the Appropriate Authority or an authorised officer, or by a person who has given at least 15 days’ notice to the Appropriate Authority about the alleged offence and the intention to file a complaint.
The principal question before the Supreme Court was whether the declaration of offences as cognizable under Section 27 independently permits police to register FIRs and investigate, or whether the special procedure laid down under Section 28 limits the initiation of criminal proceedings.
The Court held that the language of Sections 27 and 28, read with other provisions of the Act, indicates that police are not intended to act as the investigators for offences under the PC-PNDT Act.
It noted that Section 17(4) makes investigation of complaints a responsibility of the Appropriate Authority. The Court also referred to Rule 18A(3)(iv), which requires that recourse to the police be avoided as far as possible.
Police may, however, play a supplemental role when required by the Appropriate Authority and in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
FIR Cannot Replace Statutory Procedure Under PC-PNDT Act
The Supreme Court observed that an FIR registered by the police for offences under the PC-PNDT Act cannot be taken to its logical conclusion under the procedure prescribed by the special legislation.
At the same time, the Court clarified that the restriction applies specifically to offences under the PC-PNDT Act. It does not prevent police from investigating or prosecuting separate offences under general criminal law where such offences are independently made out.
The Court examined whether the cognizable nature of offences under Section 27 was sufficient by itself to allow ordinary police investigation. It concluded that the statutory framework of the PC-PNDT Act creates a distinct mechanism in which the Appropriate Authority plays the central investigative role.
Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta, along with Advocate-on-Record Nitin Saluja, assisted the Court as amicus curiae in examining the issue.
Magistrate Cannot Take Cognizance on Police Chargesheet Alone
The third issue before the Court concerned whether a magistrate could take cognizance of a PC-PNDT Act offence on the basis of a chargesheet submitted after a police investigation.
The Supreme Court held that Section 28 creates a complete statutory mechanism for taking cognizance, subject to the situations specifically provided under the provision. It therefore ruled that a competent magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence under the Act solely on the basis of a police chargesheet.
Following its findings, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court for a decision in accordance with law.
Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee appeared for the Union of India, while Advocate-on-Record Vishwa Pal Singh appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh. Senior Advocates Mukta Gupta, Pramod Kumar Dubey and Siddharth Agarwal, along with other advocates, also assisted the Court.
The matter was titled The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brij Pal Singh.
About the author — Suvedita Nath is a science student with a growing interest in cybercrime and digital safety. She writes on online activity, cyber threats, and technology-driven risks. Her work focuses on clarity, accuracy, and public awareness.
