The Supreme Court today held that police cannot register 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 (PC & PNDT Act). The Court held that the Appropriate Authority constituted under the Act is responsible for investigating complaints, while police can at most play a supplemental role when required by the Appropriate Authority.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh pronounced judgment in a case concerning the scope of police powers to register FIRs and investigate offences under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PC & PNDT Act).

The Court also held that a competent Magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence under the Act on the basis of a chargesheet filed after a police investigation. 

The Court held, "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 as also the requirement of sensitivity along with medical and technical know-how, indicates that the police are not meant to be the investigators for the purpose of this Act. This is further made clear by the fact that an FIR once registered cannot be taken to its logical conclusion as per the procedures of this Act. The restriction applies only to offences under this Act and does not restrict the police's power to investigate or prosecute independent offences disclosed under substantive criminal law (IPC/BNS)."

The case arises from an Allahabad High Court judgment dated September 30, 2024, which had referred three questions to be decided by the Supreme Court. The questions arise from the interplay between Section 27 and Section 28 of the Act.

Section 27 declares every offence under the Act to be cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable. Section 28, however, provides that no court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act except on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority or an authorised officer, or by a person who has given at least 15 days' notice to the Appropriate Authority of the alleged offence and of the intention to make a complaint.

The Supreme Court held that Section 27 cannot be read in isolation from Section 28 and the other provisions of the Act. Section 17(4) expressly assigns the Appropriate Authority the function of investigating complaints, taking immediate action and initiating independent investigations. Section 17A gives the Authority powers to summon persons, require documents and issue search warrants. Section 30 also empowers the Appropriate Authority to conduct searches and seizures with such assistance as it considers necessary.

The issue involved in the present case was whether the declaration of offences as cognizable under Section 27 independently permits registration and investigation of FIRs by the police, or whether the special procedure under Section 28 limits the initiation of criminal proceedings to the mechanism prescribed under the Act. Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta along with Advocate-on-Record Nitin Saluja assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae in examining the issue.

The Supreme Court answered the three questions as follows -

(A) Whether, for the offences under the PC & PNDT Act, the registration of FIR at the Police Station is permissible, merely because the offences under the PC & PNDT Act have been made cognizable and non-bailable?

Answer - The Supreme Court held that the language of Sections 27 and 28, read with the other provisions of the Act and keeping in mind its socially beneficial nature and the sensitivity and medical and technical know-how involved, indicates that the police are not meant to be the investigators for offences under the Act.

The Court noted that the PC & PNDT Act operates in a specialised field requiring medical and technical assessment. It also noted that Section 30 specifically applies the CrPC provisions relating to searches and seizures, indicating that Parliament had expressly incorporated general criminal procedure where it intended to do so. The Court therefore rejected the argument that the general police-investigation procedure would automatically apply merely because the Act does not expressly exclude it.

The Court noted that an FIR registered by the police cannot be taken to its logical conclusion under the procedure prescribed by the Act. The restriction, however, applies only to offences under the PC & PNDT Act and does not prevent the police from investigating and prosecuting independent offences under general criminal law, the Court clarified.

(B) Whether the Police investigation is permissible for the offences under the PC & PNDT Act? AND Who can investigate the complaints, received for violation of the provisions of the PC & PNDT Act?

Answer - The Supreme Court noted that Section 17(4) of the Act makes investigation of complaints a responsibility of the Appropriate Authority. The Court also referred to Rule 18A(3)(iv), which has statutory force and requires that further recourse to the police be avoided as far as possible.

The Court noted that if the police investigate an offence under the Act and file a chargesheet, the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of that chargesheet because Section 28 permits cognizance only on a complaint by the persons specified in the provision. The Court therefore held that an interpretation permitting police investigation would make such an investigation incapable of being taken to its logical conclusion under the statutory scheme.

The Court therefore concluded that the police cannot be the main investigative authority under the Act. At most, the police may play a supplemental role when required by the Appropriate Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

(C) Whether on the charge sheet submitted after the investigation by the Police, the competent magistrate can take cognizance of the offence under the PC & PNDT Act?

Answer - 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 consequently held that a competent Magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence under the Act on the basis of a chargesheet filed pursuant to a police investigation.

Accordingly, the Court remanded the matter to the High Court to take a decision in the case in accordance with law. 

In a supplementary opinion, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh clarified that police assistance may still be sought by the Appropriate Authority for purposes such as protection, tracing an accused, digital or forensic assistance and preservation of a scene. Such assistance, however, cannot displace the Appropriate Authority's responsibility for investigating the PC & PNDT offence.

He further clarified that the same transaction may give rise to two separate procedural tracks. The Appropriate Authority would investigate the PC & PNDT offence, while the police could independently investigate an IPC/BNS offence arising from the same transaction. If police investigating an IPC/BNS offence find material indicating a possible PC & PNDT violation, they must place that material before the Appropriate Authority. Conversely, if the Appropriate Authority finds an independent IPC/BNS offence, it should communicate the material to the police.

Appearance - 

Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee appeared for the Union of India while AOR Vishwa Pal Singh appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh. 

Senior Advocates Mukta Gupta, Pramod Kumar Dubey and Siddharth Agarwal, along with Advocates Gyanendra Kumar, Sakshi Arora, Harshit Sharma, Vikalp Sharma and Meena Kaura Patel also assisted the Court. AOR Nitin Saluja assisted the Amicus Curiae.

Crl.A. No. 2938/2025 Diary No. 22340 / 2025 THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs BRIJ PAL SINGH

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 842

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment