Police Cannot Register FIR Or Conduct Investigation For PC-PNDT Act Offences: Supreme Court Clarifies Special Criminal Procedure
Supreme Court of India | State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brij Pal Singh | Criminal Appeal No. 2938 of 2025 | Judgement dated 20 August 2026
Introduction
In a significant judgement concerning the enforcement of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PC-PNDT Act), the Supreme Court has clarified an important question that has generated considerable litigation: Can the police independently register an FIR and investigate an offence under the PC-PNDT Act merely because the offence is classified as cognisable?
The answer given by the Supreme Court is no.
A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh has held that the police cannot register an FIR and act as the principal investigating agency for offences under the PC-PNDT Act. The statutory Appropriate Authority is responsible for investigating complaints under the special legislation. The police may assist the Appropriate Authority when their assistance is required, but they cannot replace the statutory mechanism prescribed by Parliament.
The Court has further held that a magistrate cannot take cognisance of a PC-PNDT Act offence merely on the basis of a police chargesheet filed after a police investigation.
This is an important ruling not only for doctors, sonologists, diagnostic centres and medical establishments, but also for police officers, appropriate authorities, prosecutors and magistrates dealing with PC-PNDT prosecutions.
The Judgement At A Glance
| Issue | Supreme Court’s Ruling |
|---|---|
| Can police register an FIR for an offence under the PC-PNDT Act merely because it is cognisable? | No |
| Can police independently conduct the principal investigation under the PC-PNDT Act? | No |
| Who has primary responsibility to investigate PC-PNDT complaints? | The Appropriate Authority |
| Can police assist the Appropriate Authority? | Yes, where required under the statutory scheme |
| Can a magistrate take cognisance of a police chargesheet? | No |
| What is the significance of Section 28? | It prescribes the statutory mechanism for taking cognisance. |
| Does the judgement prevent police investigation of other independent offences? | No |
The Court’s ruling is particularly significant because Section 27 of the Act declares PC-PNDT offences to be cognisable, non-bailable and non-compoundable, while Section 28 prescribes who may initiate proceedings before the court.
Facts And Background Of The Case
The matter arose from proceedings concerning the interpretation and interaction of Sections 27 and 28 of the PC-PNDT Act.
The controversy ultimately reached the Supreme Court after the Allahabad High Court, by its judgement dated 30 September 2024, referred three important questions concerning the extent of police powers under the Act.
The central difficulty was apparently straightforward but legally important.
Section 27 says that every offence under the PC-PNDT Act is cognisable, non-bailable and non-compoundable.
Ordinarily, when an offence is cognisable, the criminal procedure framework permits police intervention and investigation.
But the PC-PNDT Act contains another important provision.
Section 28 specifically regulates cognisance.
It provides that no court can take cognisance of an offence under the Act except upon a complaint made by the Appropriate Authority or an authorised officer, or by a person who has given the prescribed notice to the Appropriate Authority and intends to make a complaint.
The Central Legal Question
The legal question, therefore, became:
Does the word “cognisable” in Section 27 automatically give the police an independent power to register an FIR and investigate a PC-PNDT offence?
The Supreme Court has now answered that question in the negative.
The Three Questions Before the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered three closely connected questions.
Question 1: Can Police Register An FIR?
The first question was whether merely because PC-PNDT offences are declared cognisable and non-bailable under Section 27, the police can register an FIR at the police station.
Question 2: Can Police Independently Investigate?
The second question concerned whether police investigation is permissible for offences under the PC-PNDT Act and, if not, who is responsible for investigating such complaints.
Question 3: Can a Magistrate Take Cognisance on Police Charges?
The third question was whether a magistrate can take cognisance of a PC-PNDT offence on the basis of a chargesheet filed following a police investigation.
The Supreme Court answered all three questions in a manner that gives primacy to the special statutory machinery created by the PC-PNDT Act.
Why Section 27 Alone Does Not Authorise Police Investigation
This is perhaps the most important aspect of the judgement.
Section 27 declares every offence under the PC-PNDT Act to be:
- Cognisable;
- Non-bailable; and
- Non-compoundable.
The expression “cognisable” might ordinarily suggest that police can register an FIR and investigate without waiting for a magistrate’s order.
However, the Supreme Court has made it clear that Section 27 cannot be read in isolation.
The provisions of the Act have to be read as a complete statutory scheme.
The Court considered Sections 27 and 28 together with the other provisions of the legislation, including the role assigned to the Appropriate Authority.
The Court also took into account the socially beneficial purpose of the legislation and the medical and technical nature of the subject matter.
That contextual approach is important.
The PC-PNDT Act is not simply an ordinary penal statute. It regulates a specialised medical field and seeks to prevent the misuse of diagnostic techniques for sex selection and sex determination leading to female foeticide. The official India Code description identifies prevention of such misuse as one of the central purposes of the legislation.
The Appropriate Authority Is The Principal Investigating Authority
The Supreme Court has placed considerable emphasis on Section 17(4) of the PC-PNDT Act.
The statutory scheme assigns responsibility for investigating complaints to the Appropriate Authority.
This is a crucial distinction.
The judgement does not mean that PC-PNDT violations cannot be investigated.
Rather, it means that the investigation must take place through the mechanism created by the special act.
The Appropriate Authority is therefore not merely a formal authority required to file a complaint after a police investigation.
It has a substantive statutory role in enforcement.
The Act itself provides for the appointment and functions of the Appropriate Authority, as well as powers relating to enforcement.
In my view, this is one of the most practical consequences of the judgement.
The enforcement machinery must begin with the authority Parliament specifically entrusted with implementing the PC-PNDT legislation.
What Is The Role Of The Police?
The Supreme Court has not completely excluded the police from every situation connected with PC-PNDT proceedings.
This distinction is extremely important.
The Court has held that the police cannot be the main investigating authority for offences under the PC-PNDT Act.
However, the police can play a supplemental or assisting role when required by the Appropriate Authority in accordance with the statutory framework.
The rules also support this statutory approach. The Court referred to Rule 18A(3)(iv), which requires that recourse to police be avoided as far as possible in investigation under the Act.
Therefore, the correct understanding is not:
“Police have absolutely no role.”
The correct position is:
“Police cannot independently take over the statutory investigation contemplated by the PC-PNDT Act.”
That distinction should be carefully appreciated by investigating officers and enforcement authorities.
The Most Important Finding: Police Chargesheet Cannot Become The Basis Of Cognisance
The third part of the judgement is equally significant.
Suppose the police, nevertheless, register an FIR, conduct an investigation and submit a chargesheet alleging an offence under the PC-PNDT Act.
Can the magistrate simply accept that charge sheet and take cognisance?
The Supreme Court has answered:
No.
Section 28 creates a specific statutory mechanism governing cognisance.
Consequently, a magistrate cannot take cognisance of a PC-PNDT offence on the basis of a chargesheet submitted after a police investigation which was not undertaken in accordance with the statutory scheme.
This has potentially wide ramifications for pending prosecutions.
Cognizability and Cognisance Are Not The Same Thing
The judgement is also a useful reminder of an important criminal-law distinction.
Cognisable Offence
A cognisable offence generally permits police powers of investigation according to the applicable criminal procedure.
Cognisance
Cognisance, however, concerns the point at which the competent court judicially takes notice of an offence for the purpose of proceeding under law.
These concepts are related, but they are not identical.
The PC-PNDT Act demonstrates why this distinction matters.
Parliament may declare an offence cognisable under one provision while simultaneously prescribing a special mechanism controlling how a court may take cognisance.
The Supreme Court has effectively held that the special statutory procedure cannot be defeated merely by relying upon the general consequence of the word “cognisable”.
Section 28 Is A Special Statutory Safeguard
Section 28 is central to understanding the judgement.
Under Section 28, cognisance may be taken upon a complaint made by:
- The Appropriate Authority concerned;
- An officer authorised by the Central or State Government or Appropriate Authority; or
- A person who has given the prescribed notice to the Appropriate Authority of the alleged offence and of the intention to make a complaint.
The statute also specifies the courts competent to try offences under the Act.
Therefore, Section 28 is not merely a procedural formality.
It forms part of the legislative design governing the commencement of prosecution.
The Supreme Court has treated this mechanism as having substantive legal consequences.
Why This Interpretation Makes Practical Sense
From the standpoint of statutory interpretation, the judgement is significant because it prevents one provision of a special statute from being read in isolation.
If Section 27 were interpreted independently, the word “cognisable” could potentially permit the police to bypass the enforcement structure created under Sections 17 and 28.
That would create an unusual situation.
Parliament would have created an Appropriate Authority, entrusted it with specialised enforcement responsibilities, and prescribed a particular route for cognisance, and yet a general police investigation could effectively bypass that mechanism.
The Supreme Court has rejected that approach.
The better interpretation is to read the Act as a coherent statutory scheme.
The Medical And Technical Dimension
The PC-PNDT Act deals with a highly specialised area of medical practice.
The legislation regulates:
- Genetic counselling centres;
- Genetic laboratories;
- Genetic clinics;
- Ultrasonography and imaging facilities;
- Prenatal diagnostic procedures;
- Sex selection;
- Maintenance of prescribed records; and
- Prevention of misuse of diagnostic techniques.
The statutory framework specifically provides for registration, regulation, inspection, records and enforcement mechanisms.
The Supreme Court recognised the importance of the specialised nature of the legislation and the medical and technical knowledge involved.
That is a significant consideration.
A criminal investigation involving highly technical medical records, diagnostic procedures and statutory compliance cannot necessarily be approached in exactly the same way as an ordinary criminal offence.
The statutory authority is expected to understand the regulatory framework within which the alleged violation occurs.
Does the Judgement Protect Doctors From Criminal Liability?
No.
This point must be stated clearly.
The judgement does not dilute the substantive prohibitions of the PC-PNDT Act.
It does not declare that doctors, sonologists, diagnostic centres or other persons accused of violating the Act are immune from prosecution.
It only clarifies how prosecution under the special statute must be initiated and investigated.
Where a genuine PC-PNDT violation exists, the Appropriate Authority remains responsible for taking action in accordance with law.
The Act itself contains penal provisions, including imprisonment and fines for specified violations.
Therefore, the judgement should not be misunderstood as a relaxation of the PC-PNDT regime.
It is primarily a decision concerning statutory procedure, jurisdiction and enforcement architecture.
What About Other Criminal Offences?
The Supreme Court has made another important clarification.
Its ruling concerning police investigation applies to offences under the PC-PNDT Act.
It does not prevent police authorities from investigating an independent offence under general criminal law, where the ingredients of that separate offence are independently made out.
This distinction is essential.
For example, if facts disclose a separate offence under another criminal statute, the judgement cannot automatically be interpreted as giving immunity from investigation into that independent offence.
The prohibition concerns treating the police as the principal investigating authority for the PC-PNDT offence itself.
Earlier Judicial Conflict Makes The Judgement More Significant
The importance of the Supreme Court’s ruling becomes even clearer when viewed against the judicial debate that preceded it.
In 2025, the Delhi High Court had taken the view that the PC-PNDT Act’s declaration of offences as cognisable meant that FIR registration and police investigation were not per se barred, although cognisance still depended upon the statutory complaint mechanism.
The Supreme Court’s judgement now provides authoritative clarification at the national level.
This is precisely why today’s ruling is likely to become an important precedent in pending PC-PNDT litigation.
What Happens To Existing FIRs And Chargesheets?
This is likely to be one of the most litigated consequences of the judgement.
The Supreme Court has held that a magistrate cannot take cognisance of a PC-PNDT offence on the basis of a police chargesheet resulting from a police investigation.
Therefore, accused persons facing proceedings initiated in this manner may examine:
- How the proceedings were initiated;
- Whether an FIR was registered by the police exclusively for PC-PNDT offences;
- Who conducted the investigation
- Whether the Appropriate Authority performed the statutory investigative role;
- Whether the complaint satisfies Section 28;
- Whether the Magistrate took cognisance of a legally permissible complaint; and
- Whether any independent offences under general criminal law are also alleged.
Each case, however, will have to be examined on its own facts and procedural history.
The judgement itself remanded the matter to the High Court for consideration in accordance with law.
What This Means For Police Officers
The ruling provides a fairly clear operational message.
A police officer receiving information about an alleged PC-PNDT violation should not automatically treat the matter as an ordinary cognisable offence and commence an independent investigation under the general criminal procedure framework.
The statutory role of the Appropriate Authority must first be respected.
Where police assistance is genuinely required, it can be provided in the manner contemplated by the Act and Rules.
This approach should reduce the possibility of procedural challenges at the later stage of prosecution.
What This Means For Appropriate Authorities
For Appropriate Authorities, the judgement reinforces their statutory responsibility.
They cannot treat the police as a substitute for their own statutory investigative functions.
Authorities should ensure that:
- Complaints are properly recorded;
- Relevant medical and regulatory material is secured;
- Statutory inspection and seizure procedures are followed;
- Records are preserved;
- The persons concerned are proceeded against in accordance with the Act;
- The complaint satisfies Section 28; and
- Any police assistance is sought within the statutory framework.
The judgement therefore places greater emphasis on the institutional accountability of the Appropriate Authority.
What This Means For Doctors And Diagnostic Centres
For medical practitioners and diagnostic establishments, the judgement is particularly relevant.
A PC-PNDT proceeding can have serious professional and criminal consequences.
Therefore, when a practitioner receives notice or faces proceedings, it is important to determine at the earliest stage:
- Who initiated the proceedings?
- Was an FIR registered by the police?
- Who conducted the investigation?
- Was the Appropriate Authority involved?
- What is the precise statutory offence alleged?
- Was a complaint filed in accordance with Section 28?
- On what material did the magistrate take cognisance?
- Are there any independent offences alleged apart from the PC-PNDT Act?
These questions can become crucial in determining whether the prosecution has followed the legally prescribed route.
A Wider Principle Of Criminal Law
There is a larger legal principle behind this judgement.
Where Parliament creates a special statutory procedure, courts and investigating agencies cannot casually bypass that procedure by reverting to a general procedural mechanism.
A special statute may create:
- A specialised authority;
- A particular investigative process;
- Special conditions for prosecution;
- A special cognisance provision; and
- Special procedural safeguards.
When these provisions operate together, they must ordinarily be given meaningful effect.
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the PC-PNDT Act reflects this principle.
Why The Judgement Is Important For Criminal Procedure
The judgement may have significance beyond the PC-PNDT Act because it illustrates how courts should approach the relationship between:
Special Legislation + General Criminal Procedure + Cognisance Provisions.
The fact that an offence is labelled “cognisable” cannot always be treated as the end of the statutory inquiry.
The court must still ask:
What does the special statute itself provide regarding investigation and cognisance?
That is an important lesson for lawyers dealing with special criminal statutes.
Key Takeaways From The Supreme Court Judgement
1. Police Cannot Independently Register FIR Under The PC-PNDT Act
The Supreme Court has held that police cannot register an FIR and act as the principal investigating agency for PC-PNDT offences merely because those offences are cognisable.
2. Appropriate Authority Has The Primary Investigative Role
Section 17(4) places responsibility for investigation of complaints upon the Appropriate Authority.
3. Police Can Provide Assistance
The judgement does not completely eliminate police involvement. Police assistance may be sought when required by the Appropriate Authority within the statutory framework.
4. Section 28 Controls Cognisance
The magistrate must follow the special cognisance mechanism prescribed by Section 28.
5. Police Chargesheet Alone Is Insufficient
A magistrate cannot take cognisance of a PC-PNDT offence merely on the basis of a chargesheet filed after a police investigation.
6. Independent Offences Are Different
The ruling does not prevent police from investigating separate offences under general criminal law where legally permissible.
Legal Significance Of The Judgement
In my considered view, the most important aspect of this judgement is that the Supreme Court has restored the distinction between a general criminal investigation and enforcement under a specialised regulatory statute.
The PC-PNDT Act was enacted for a particular social purpose, and Parliament deliberately created an enforcement structure suited to that purpose.
The police cannot simply bypass that structure because Section 27 uses the expression “cognisable”.
At the same time, the judgement should not be portrayed as weakening the fight against sex selection or female foeticide.
Quite the contrary.
A legally correct enforcement mechanism can make prosecution stronger because it reduces the possibility that an otherwise serious case will ultimately fail on account of a fundamental procedural defect.
For practitioners, this is an important lesson:
The strength of a criminal prosecution depends not merely upon the allegation but also upon the legality of the route by which the prosecution reaches the court.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgement in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brij Pal Singh, decided on 20 August 2026, is an important ruling on the enforcement architecture of the PC-PNDT Act.
The Court has made three propositions clear:
- First, police cannot independently register an FIR and conduct the principal investigation for an offence under the PC-PNDT Act merely because the offence is cognisable.
- Second, the Appropriate Authority is the primary authority responsible for investigation under the special statutory scheme, while police may assist where required.
- Third, a magistrate cannot take cognisance of a PC-PNDT offence merely upon a police chargesheet generated through such an investigation; Section 28’s special complaint mechanism must be respected.
The judgement is therefore not a decision against enforcement of the PC-PNDT Act. It is a decision insisting that enforcement itself must remain faithful to the law enacted by Parliament.
That distinction is fundamental to the rule of law.
Citation
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brij Pal Singh, Criminal Appeal No. 2938 of 2025, Diary No. 22340 of 2025, Supreme Court of India, judgement dated 20 August 2026, Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh. The case concerned the interpretation of Sections 27 and 28 of the PC-PNDT Act and the role of police and the Appropriate Authority in investigation and prosecution.
Statutory reference: The Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, particularly Sections 17, 17A, 23, 27 and 28.
Need Legal Advice on a PC-PNDT Act Case?
If you or your medical establishment are facing a PC-PNDT Act complaint, police FIR, investigation, prosecution, or cognisance proceedings, timely legal advice can be crucial. Understanding whether the statutory procedure prescribed under the PC-PNDT Act has been properly followed may significantly affect your legal remedies.
Consult an Experienced Supreme Court Lawyer
Adv. Tarun Choudhury
Supreme Court Advocate | 25+ Years of Legal Experience
đź“ž Call: 9650499965
đź’¬ WhatsApp: 8851978611
Get professional legal guidance on PC-PNDT Act proceedings, criminal litigation, Supreme Court matters, and related legal remedies.
Legal Service India.com — Trusted Legal Guidance & Assistance
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. Can Police Register an FIR Under the PC-PNDT Act?
No. The Supreme Court has held that the police cannot independently register an FIR and conduct the principal investigation for an offence under the PC-PNDT Act. The statutory investigation must be carried out through the Appropriate Authority prescribed under the Act.
2. Who Can Investigate an Offence Under the PC-PNDT Act?
The Appropriate Authority has the primary responsibility for investigating complaints under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. The police may provide assistance when required in accordance with the statutory scheme.
3. Can a Magistrate Take Cognisance of a PC-PNDT Offence Based on a Police Chargesheet?
No. The Supreme Court has clarified that a magistrate cannot take cognisance of a PC-PNDT Act offence merely on the basis of a police chargesheet filed after a police investigation. The requirements of Section 28 of the PC-PNDT Act must be followed.
4. Does the Supreme Court Judgement Mean That PC-PNDT Act Offences Cannot Be Prosecuted?
No. The judgement does not provide immunity from prosecution. It clarifies the proper legal procedure for investigation and cognisance. Genuine violations of the PC-PNDT Act can still be investigated and prosecuted through the statutory mechanism prescribed by Parliament.
5. What Is the Impact of the Supreme Court Judgement on Doctors and Diagnostic Centres?
The judgement is significant for doctors, sonologists, radiologists, genetic clinics, diagnostic centres and other medical establishments facing PC-PNDT proceedings. They should examine whether the FIR, investigation and cognisance have been initiated in accordance with the PC-PNDT Act, particularly Sections 17, 27 and 28. A proceeding initiated through an impermissible police investigation may give rise to important legal remedies.
Key Takeaways
- Police cannot independently register an FIR under the PC-PNDT Act and conduct the principal investigation merely because PC-PNDT offences are classified as cognisable.
- The Supreme Court has held that the Appropriate Authority is responsible for investigating PC-PNDT Act offences under the special statutory framework.
- Police assistance is permissible where required by the Appropriate Authority, but police cannot replace the statutory role of the Appropriate Authority.
- A magistrate cannot take cognisance of a PC-PNDT Act offence solely on the basis of a police chargesheet arising from an investigation conducted by the police.
- Section 28 of the PC-PNDT Act is crucial because it prescribes the specific mechanism through which a court can take cognisance of offences under the Act.
- The Supreme Court judgement reinforces the principle that special statutory procedures must be followed even when an offence is declared cognisable.
- The ruling is particularly important for doctors, radiologists, sonologists, genetic clinics, ultrasound centres and diagnostic establishments facing PC-PNDT proceedings.
- The judgement does not provide immunity from prosecution for violations of the PC-PNDT Act. It clarifies the legally prescribed procedure for investigation and prosecution.
- Existing PC-PNDT cases involving police FIRs, police investigations or chargesheets may require careful examination to determine whether the statutory procedure has been followed.
- The judgement distinguishes between a cognisable offence and the procedure for taking cognisance, making it an important decision in Indian criminal procedural law.
Summary
The Supreme Court has ruled that police cannot independently register an FIR and conduct the principal investigation for offences under the PC-PNDT Act. The Appropriate Authority has the primary statutory role in investigating PC-PNDT violations, while police may assist when required. A magistrate cannot take cognisance merely on the basis of a police chargesheet; the special procedure under Section 28 of the PC-PNDT Act must be followed. The judgement is especially significant for doctors, diagnostic centres, sonologists and other medical establishments facing PC-PNDT prosecution.
Important Links
- Lawyers in India
- Copyright Registration in India
- Caveat Filing in Supreme Court of India
- Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi NCR: WhatsApp 9650499965
