Police Cannot Hijack PCPNDT Investigations Merely Because Offences Are Cognizable: Supreme Court Bars FIR-Based Prosecution and Police Chargesheets
Case Name: State of Uttar Pradesh and Another v. Brij Pal Singh and Another
Date of Judgment: 20 August 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 901
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Held: The Supreme Court held that the police cannot register an FIR and independently investigate offences under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 merely because Section 27 classifies such offences as cognizable and non-bailable. The Appropriate Authority constituted under the PCPNDT Act is the principal and exclusive investigating authority. Police assistance may be obtained only in a supplemental capacity and under the Appropriate Authority’s supervision. A Magistrate cannot take cognizance of PCPNDT Act offences based upon a police chargesheet because Section 28 mandates prosecution through a complaint filed by the Appropriate Authority, an authorised officer or another statutorily permitted complainant. However, the restriction does not prevent the police from investigating independently constituted offences under the IPC, BNS or another general penal law arising from the same transaction.
Summary: The case arose from secret information received by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar, regarding alleged illegal determination of foetal sex by Brij Pal Singh and others. The District Magistrate, acting as the Appropriate Authority under the PCPNDT Act, authorised the Tehsildar of Khurja to conduct a decoy operation.
Information obtained during the decoy operation resulted in a raid upon the hospital. FIR No. 628 of 2017 was registered, and a chargesheet was filed against the accused under Sections 315 and 511 IPC and Sections 4, 5(2), 6(a), 23 and 25 of the PCPNDT Act.
The accused approached the Allahabad High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the chargesheet. The High Court allowed the petition but noted conflicting judgments among different High Courts regarding the authority of the police to register an FIR, investigate PCPNDT Act offences and submit a chargesheet on which a Magistrate could take cognizance. It consequently certified the matter for appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134-A read with Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court examined the entire statutory scheme, particularly Sections 17, 17A, 27, 28 and 30 of the PCPNDT Act and Rule 18A(3)(iv) of the PCPNDT Rules, 1996.
Section 17(4) expressly entrusts the Appropriate Authority with the responsibility of investigating complaints concerning breaches of the Act and initiating independent investigations. Section 17A empowers it to summon persons, require the production of documents and material objects and issue search warrants. Section 30 further authorises it to search premises and seize material that may furnish evidence of an offence.
The Court held that these provisions establish a specialised investigative mechanism suited to the medical and technical nature of PCPNDT offences. The Appropriate Authority is not merely a complainant who enters the proceedings at the cognizance stage; it is the statutory body responsible for investigating the offence itself.
Although Section 27 declares PCPNDT offences to be cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable, it cannot be read in isolation. Section 28 prescribes the exclusive procedure by which a court may take cognizance—namely, upon a complaint by the Appropriate Authority, a duly authorised officer or a person who has given the prescribed notice.
The word “cognizable” in Section 27 does not automatically activate the ordinary police machinery under Section 154 CrPC or authorise the police to replace the specialised authority. The PCPNDT Act is a special legislation, and its specific investigative and prosecutorial procedure prevails over the general procedure under the CrPC or BNSS.
The Court also held that Rule 18A(3)(iv), which requires the Appropriate Authority “as far as possible” not to involve the police in investigations, possesses statutory force. The rule reflects the legislative intent that PCPNDT cases should ordinarily be investigated and prosecuted as complaint cases through the Appropriate Authority.
The police may assist the Appropriate Authority with protection, tracing an accused, preservation of the crime scene, digital or forensic support and other logistical requirements. Such assistance must ordinarily arise from a specific request and remain subordinate to the Appropriate Authority-led investigation. It cannot be converted into an independent police investigation or culminate in a police chargesheet for PCPNDT offences.
The Supreme Court clarified that the statutory restriction applies only to offences under the PCPNDT Act. If the same transaction independently discloses the ingredients of an IPC or BNS offence—such as homicide, foeticide or another substantive criminal offence—the police retain full authority to register an FIR and investigate that distinct offence.
The existence of overlapping facts, persons, premises or documents does not merge the two statutory routes. The Appropriate Authority must investigate the PCPNDT component, while the police may separately investigate the general penal offence. Neither agency can use one offence as a gateway to invade the other’s statutory domain.
If information received by the police discloses only a PCPNDT violation, the police must make an appropriate diary entry and promptly transmit the information and accompanying material to the notified Appropriate Authority. They cannot begin an independent investigation.
Where the information also discloses a distinct cognizable offence under the IPC, BNS or another general law, the police may register and investigate that offence while simultaneously forwarding the PCPNDT component to the Appropriate Authority.
Similarly, if the police encounter evidence of a PCPNDT violation while investigating a general criminal offence, they must place that material before the Appropriate Authority. Conversely, where the Appropriate Authority discovers material revealing an independent IPC or BNS offence, it must communicate that material to the jurisdictional police.
On cognizance, the Court held that Section 28 creates a complete statutory embargo. A Magistrate cannot take cognizance of a PCPNDT offence solely on the basis of a police report or chargesheet. Cognizance must follow the complaint procedure expressly prescribed by the Act.
Decision: The Supreme Court answered the reference by holding that the police are not competent to act as the principal investigators of PCPNDT Act offences and that a Magistrate cannot take cognizance of such offences on a police chargesheet. The Appropriate Authority alone must lead the investigation and institute the statutory complaint, although the police may provide limited assistance and independently investigate distinct IPC, BNS or other general penal offences.