In a significant ruling resolving conflicting decisions across various High Courts, a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh has held that the State Police has no power to independently register a First Information Report (FIR) or conduct an investigation for offences under the Pre-conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act). The Court ruled that the Appropriate Authority (AA) appointed under the statute is the exclusive investigating agency, and a competent Magistrate is legally barred under Section 28 of the Act from taking cognizance of PCPNDT offences based on a police chargesheet or police report. However, the Bench clarified that the police retain their authority to independently investigate distinct offences arising under general substantive penal laws such as the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) or Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
Background of the Case
The matter reached the Supreme Court through a certificate of appeal granted under Article 134-A read with Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The underlying proceedings stemmed from a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) filed by the respondent seeking the quashing of a chargesheet drawn under Sections 315 and 511 of the IPC read with Sections 4, 5(2), 6(a), 23, and 25 of the PCPNDT Act flowing from FIR No. 628 of 2017.
The FIR had been registered following a decoy operation and a subsequent hospital raid initiated on secret information received by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar, regarding illegal foetal sex determination. While the Single Judge of the High Court accepted the quashing petition, noticing stark divergence among High Courts on whether police could register FIRs and investigate offences under the PCPNDT Act in light of Section 27 making them cognizable, the following three questions were certified for determination:
- Whether the registration of an FIR at a police station is permissible for offences under the PCPNDT Act merely because they are made cognizable and non-bailable?
- Whether police investigation is permissible for offences under the Act, and who can investigate such complaints?
- Whether a competent Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence under the PCPNDT Act upon a chargesheet submitted after police investigation?
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing as Amicus Curiae, Senior Counsel Ms. Mukta Gupta, alongside other senior advocates, submitted that a combined reading of Sections 17, 17A, 28, and Rule 18A(3)(iv) of the PCPNDT Rules, 1996 establishes that the Appropriate Authority is solely entrusted with investigation, search, seizure, and filing of statutory complaints. They argued that Section 28 creates a complete jurisdictional and prohibitory bar on taking cognizance except on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority or an authorized officer. The term “cognizable” in Section 27 cannot be read in isolation to dismantle the specialized statutory mechanism or confer investigative supremacy on the police.
Conversely, the Union of India and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare contended that Section 27 explicitly makes offences cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable, which automatically triggers the general investigative powers of the police under the CrPC and BNSS. They argued that “investigation” and “cognizance” are distinct legal stages, and Section 28 merely restricts the post-investigation stage of cognizance without displacing the police’s duty to register FIRs and conduct pre-cognizance investigations. They added that the phrase “as far as possible” in Rule 18A(3)(iv) is directory, intended to encourage coordination rather than absolute exclusion of the police.
The Court’s Analysis and Precedents
Delivering the principal judgment, Justice Sanjay Karol observed that the PCPNDT Act is a self-contained, special enactment designed to regulate medical diagnostic techniques and eradicate female foeticide while protecting medical professionals from undue harassment. Under the principle that special law overrides general law (Sections 4 and 5 of CrPC / BNSS), the specific procedural regime provided under the special statute must govern.
The Court examined statutory precedents across comparable special legislations:
- Under Section 22 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (TOHO Act), as interpreted in Jeewan Kumar Raut & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, the filing of a police report is statutorily forbidden, and only an authorized officer can file a complaint petition.
- Under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma, it was established that a police officer cannot register an FIR or investigate Chapter IV cognizable offences under the CrPC.
- In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act), the bar against police cognizance was held strictly confined to offences under the special Act, leaving independent penal offences under the IPC unaffected.
- The Court also cited State of M.P. v. Manvinder Singh Gill, State of Rajasthan v. Mohammad Imtiyaz, and Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana to highlight the strict statutory restrictions governing complaints and searches under the PCPNDT Act.
Addressing the apparent tension between Section 27 (classifying offences as cognizable) and Section 28 (mandating the complaint route), the Court applied established rules of statutory interpretation, observing:
“If two sections of an Act cannot be reconciled, as there may be absolute contradictions, it is often said that the last must prevail. But this should be accepted only in the last resort.”
Citing the rule against futility from CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers and the golden rule in Grey v. Pearson, the Bench noted:
“A construction which reduces the statute to a futility has to be avoided. A statute or any enacting provision therein must be so construed as to make it effective and operative on the principle expressed in the maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat…”
The Court pointed out that if the police were permitted to investigate and file a chargesheet, the court could not take cognizance due to Section 28, rendering the entire police exercise legally futile. The Court also held that Rule 18A(3)(iv) carries statutory force. Relying on State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan, the Bench noted that the words “as far as possible” confer limited discretion on the Appropriate Authority to seek police aid strictly in an assisting, supplemental capacity.
Concurring Opinion and Dual-Track Framework
In a concurring opinion, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh provided comprehensive procedural guidelines for situations where a single transaction involves both PCPNDT violations and independent general penal offences (IPC/BNS):
- If information received by the police discloses exclusively a PCPNDT violation, the police must enter it into the station diary and immediately transmit the material to the notified Appropriate Authority without commencing an independent investigation.
- Where the information discloses an independent cognizable offence under the IPC/BNS (such as medical acts causing death or homicide), the police may investigate that distinct offence, while simultaneously forwarding the PCPNDT aspect to the Appropriate Authority.
- The two agencies must maintain reciprocal coordination: police may seek inspection findings and technical reports from the Appropriate Authority, while the Authority may seek logistical, digital, or protective assistance from the police.
- Police assistance rendered to the Appropriate Authority cannot be converted into an independent police investigation or culminate in a police chargesheet under the PCPNDT Act.
The Decision
Answering the reference, the Supreme Court held:
- Registration of FIR: Police registration of an FIR for offences under the PCPNDT Act is impermissible, as the statute vests investigative powers exclusively in the Appropriate Authority.
- Investigating Authority: The Appropriate Authority alone is empowered under Section 17(4) to investigate complaints under the Act. The police can only play a supplemental role upon a specific request from the Authority.
- Cognizance on Chargesheet: A competent Magistrate cannot take cognizance of offences under the PCPNDT Act on the basis of a police chargesheet.
The reference was answered accordingly, and the matter was remanded to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad to decide the proceedings in accordance with the judgment.
Case Details
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Brij Pal Singh & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2938 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
Date of Judgment: August 20, 2026
