The Supreme Court has ruled that police cannot ordinarily register FIRs or conduct investigations for offences exclusively under the PCPNDT Act. The Court held that the Appropriate Authority must initiate complaints and oversee proceedings, while police assistance can be sought only in a limited, supplementary role.
The Supreme Court has held that offences under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act) cannot ordinarily be investigated by the police. The Court clarified that the Appropriate Authority designated under the legislation is responsible for initiating complaints and carrying out the statutory investigation.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N.K. Singh observed that police involvement in such matters should generally be avoided. However, the police can assist the Appropriate Authority in a limited and supplementary capacity whenever their assistance is considered necessary under the Act.
Special Law Provides Its Own Investigation Mechanism
The ruling came in State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Brij Pal Singh & Anr., where the Court considered whether police authorities could register an FIR and investigate alleged violations of the PCPNDT Act merely because the offences are classified as cognisable and non-bailable.
The Court agreed with the view earlier taken by the Allahabad High Court that the PCPNDT Act constitutes a special statutory framework containing its own mechanism for investigation, search, seizure and prosecution.
The Bench noted that the legislation deals with technically sensitive issues involving medical procedures and therefore places specific responsibilities upon the Appropriate Authority rather than treating the police as the primary investigating agency.
Police Role Limited to Supplementary Assistance
The Supreme Court observed that the statutory scheme does not contemplate routine police investigation of offences under the PCPNDT Act. Instead, police assistance may be sought by the Appropriate Authority whenever circumstances require it.
The Court also pointed out that an FIR registered by the police cannot simply be taken through the ordinary criminal procedure to its logical conclusion in cases involving offences exclusively under the PCPNDT Act. The investigation and complaint mechanism prescribed by the special legislation must be followed.
At the same time, the Court clarified that this restriction does not prevent the police from investigating independent offences under general criminal law if the facts of a case disclose such offences.
Section 28 Places Restrictions on Cognisance
A significant aspect of the judgment concerns Section 28 of the PCPNDT Act. The provision specifies who can initiate proceedings and restricts a Magistrate from taking cognisance of an offence except on a complaint made by the Appropriate Authority or another person authorised under the provision.
The Supreme Court noted that the provision does not contemplate cognisance being taken merely on the basis of a police charge sheet. Consequently, the statutory procedure under the PCPNDT Act must be followed before criminal proceedings can validly proceed.
The Court also relied on the structure of the Act and the accompanying rules, which indicate that police intervention should be avoided as far as practicable.
Dispute Originated From FIR Against Doctor
The issue reached the Supreme Court after a doctor approached the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against him by the Uttar Pradesh Police in 2017.
The doctor was accused of illegally determining the sex of foetuses with the alleged intention of enabling couples to avoid the birth of female children.
His counsel argued that the FIR itself was legally impermissible because proceedings under the PCPNDT Act could be initiated only through a complaint by the Appropriate Authority under Section 28. It was further contended that the Tehsildar who lodged the FIR was not the designated Appropriate Authority.
The State, however, maintained that the Act did not prohibit registration of an FIR or police investigation. It argued that the Tehsildar had been authorised by the District Magistrate to initiate proceedings and that the statutory requirements had therefore been substantially complied with.
Supreme Court Endorses Allahabad High Court View
The Allahabad High Court had earlier held that the PCPNDT Act is a special legislation and operates as a complete statutory code concerning investigation, search, seizure and filing of complaints. It had consequently concluded that a Magistrate could not take cognisance of a PCPNDT offence solely on the basis of a police report.
The Supreme Court has now endorsed the High Court’s core finding that the police cannot act as the primary investigating authority for offences under the PCPNDT Act.
However, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court for reconsideration of certain other aspects of the case.
The ruling reinforces the principle that where a special statute creates a specific mechanism for investigation and prosecution, the authorities must follow that mechanism rather than automatically resorting to the ordinary criminal procedure.
Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta assisted the Court as amicus curiae, with Advocate Nitin Saluja. Senior Advocates Pramod Kumar Dubey and Siddharth Agarwal, along with Advocate Vikalp Sharma, assisted the Court on behalf of the Bar.
We strive to make a lasting impact on India’s policy and planning landscape through fair, unbiased, and incisive research based journalism.
But we can’t do it alone.
Together, we can create a better India, where policies are fair, planning is unbiased, and the truth prevails. Your contribution matters, and we shall be immensely grateful for your support.