Police Cannot Independently Investigate PCPNDT Act Offences, Supreme Court Clarifies

The Supreme Court has settled an important procedural question concerning investigations under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act). A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that the police cannot act as the main investigating authority for offences under the special legislation.

The Court clarified that the Appropriate Authority constituted under the PCPNDT Act is responsible for investigating complaints under the Act. Police assistance can be taken when required, but only in a supplemental or aiding capacity under the supervision of the Appropriate Authority.

Background Of The Case

The issue arose from proceedings in Uttar Pradesh concerning an FIR registered after information regarding alleged violations of the PCPNDT Act was received by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar, who was the Appropriate Authority under the Act. A decoy operation and subsequent raid resulted in criminal proceedings.

The Allahabad High Court had framed three questions for consideration: whether an FIR could be registered merely because PCPNDT offences are cognizable and non-bailable, whether police investigation was permissible, and whether a Magistrate could take cognizance on a police chargesheet.

The reference reached the Supreme Court because different High Courts had taken differing views on the role of the police under the PCPNDT framework.

Supreme Court's Reasoning

The Bench examined Sections 17, 17A, 27, 28 and 30 of the PCPNDT Act along with Rule 18A(3)(iv) of the PCPNDT Rules, 1996.

Section 17(4) specifically assigns the Appropriate Authority the function of investigating complaints. The Court also noted that Section 30 gives the Authority powers relating to search and seizure, including the ability to obtain assistance when necessary.

Rule 18A(3)(iv) states that, “as far as possible”, police should not be involved in investigating cases under the Act. The Supreme Court held that this rule has statutory force and is not merely advisory. Police involvement can therefore take place when the Appropriate Authority considers such assistance necessary, but it cannot displace the Authority's primary investigative role.

The Bench also addressed the apparent tension between Section 27, which describes PCPNDT offences as cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable, and Section 28, which prescribes how a court can take cognizance of such offences.

The Court held that Section 27 cannot be read in isolation. Since the PCPNDT Act is a special law containing its own procedure, that specialised mechanism must prevail where it differs from the general criminal procedure.

The Court observed:

“The police cannot be the main investigating authority. At best, the police may play a supplemental role, as and when required by the AA under its supervision.”

The Bench further noted that allowing the police to independently investigate would create a procedural problem because a police chargesheet cannot by itself result in cognizance under Section 28.

Decision

Answering the reference, the Supreme Court held that police are not meant to investigate offences under the PCPNDT Act merely because those offences are classified as cognizable and non-bailable.

The Appropriate Authority is the competent authority to investigate complaints under the Act. Police may assist only in a supplemental capacity when directed by the Appropriate Authority. The Court also held that a Magistrate cannot take cognizance of a PCPNDT Act offence merely on the basis of a police chargesheet, as Section 28 creates a statutory bar and requires the prescribed complaint route.

The reference was accordingly answered, the matter was remanded to the High Court for a decision in accordance with the Supreme Court's judgment, and the appeal was disposed of.

Case Details:

Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Brij Pal Singh & Anr.

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2938 of 2025

Judge: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Decision Date: August 20, 2026