Police Cannot Independently Investigate PCPNDT Act Offences, Supreme Court Clarifies

The Supreme Court has clarified an important procedural question under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act), holding that the police cannot ordinarily take over the investigation of offences under the special legislation.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh held that the Appropriate Authority constituted under the Act has the primary responsibility to examine and investigate complaints. Police assistance may be sought where necessary, but they cannot ordinarily function as the main investigating agency.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose from criminal proceedings initiated in Uttar Pradesh under the PCPNDT Act. The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the police could register an FIR and investigate an alleged violation merely because offences under the Act are classified as cognizable and non-bailable.

The issue reached the Supreme Court after the Allahabad High Court examined the statutory scheme and referred questions concerning the relationship between Sections 27 and 28 of the Act.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

The Court examined the specific mechanism created by the PCPNDT Act for dealing with violations. It noted that Section 17(4) places important responsibilities, including investigation of complaints, upon the Appropriate Authority.

The Bench also considered the relevant rules, which indicate that police involvement should be avoided as far as practicable in proceedings under the Act.

The Court observed:

“Police are not meant to be the investigators for the purposes of this Act. Recourse to the police be avoided as far as possible.”

The Court explained that the Act deals with specialised matters requiring medical and technical understanding. Therefore, the statutory framework assigns the primary investigative function to the Appropriate Authority.

Section 28 and Magistrate’s Cognizance

The Supreme Court further examined Section 28, which prescribes when a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence under the Act.

The Bench held that a police chargesheet cannot by itself provide the basis for taking cognizance of a PCPNDT Act offence where the statutory requirements under Section 28 have not been followed.

At the same time, the Court made it clear that its ruling does not prevent police from investigating independent offences under general criminal law that may arise separately from violations of the PCPNDT Act.

Decision

The Supreme Court answered the referred questions by holding that police cannot ordinarily be the primary investigating authority for offences under the PCPNDT Act. The Appropriate Authority is responsible for the investigation contemplated by the Act, while police may assist in a supplementary role when called upon to do so.

The matter was remanded to the High Court for consideration and decision in accordance with law.

A Detailed Copy of the Judgment is Awaited.