Police Are Not Meant To Be “Investigators" Under PCPNDT Act; Can't Commence Independent Investigation: Supreme Court

The Court further held that since Section 28 of the Act imposes a complete statutory embargo on courts taking cognizance except on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority or a person who has given the requisite notice, a Magistrate cannot take cognizance of a PCPNDT offence on a chargesheet filed by the police following an independent investigation, rendering any such police investigation legally inconsequential from the outset.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, delivered the judgment, with Justice Karol authoring the principal opinion and Justice Kotiswar Singh delivering a concurring opinion setting out a detailed coordination framework for cases where PCPNDT offences overlap with offences under the Indian Penal Code or Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

While answering the first question that whether, for offences under the PC & PNDT Act, the registration of FIR at the police station is permissible, merely because the offences under the PC & PNDT Act have been made cognizable and non-bailable?, the Division Bench noted, “The language of the statute, more particularly Sections 27 and 28 of the Act when read together, in light of the other provisions and the socially beneficial nature of the Act as also the requirement of sensitivity along with medical and technical know-how, indicates that the police are not meant to be the investigators for the purpose of this Act. This is further made clear by the fact that an FIR once registered cannot be taken to its logical conclusion as per the procedures of this Act. The restriction applies only to offences under this Act and does not restrict the police’s power to investigate or prosecute independent offences disclosed under substantive criminal law (IPC/BNS)”.

Senior Advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey appeared for the appellant and Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG appeared for the respondent.

On question 2 regarding Police permissibility & Investigating Authority, the Bench noted that under Section 17(4), the Appropriate Authority holds exclusive responsibility for investigating PCPNDT complaints. Supported by Rule 18A(3)(iv), police are barred from acting as the primary investigating agency and may only play a supplemental role when requested and supervised by the Appropriate Authority.

On question 3 regarding cognizance on Police chargesheet, the Bench noted that Section 28 imposes a complete statutory embargo on taking cognizance outside its specified procedures. Consequently, a competent Magistrate cannot lawfully take cognizance of a PCPNDT Act offence based on a police chargesheet.

The appeal arose on a certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court, which, while quashing a chargesheet against a doctor accused of illegal sex determination following a decoy operation, noted starkly conflicting views among High Courts, including the Allahabad, Delhi, Punjab and Haryana, Madras, Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Telangana, Bombay, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Rajasthan High Courts, on whether police FIR registration and investigation are permissible under the Act, and referred three questions to the Supreme Court.

The Court appointed Senior Advocate Ms. Mukta Gupta as amicus curiae and heard extensive submissions from multiple senior counsel, the Union of India, and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, who broadly argued that the word "cognizable" in Section 27 necessarily imports ordinary police powers of registration, investigation, and arrest, and that excluding the police would create a "backdoor immunity" for offenders.

The Court held that Sections 27 and 28 of the PCPNDT Act must be read harmoniously, ruling that Section 17(4) expressly vests investigation powers in the Appropriate Authority, not the police. Rule 18A(3)(iv) carries statutory force to limit police involvement, aligning the Act's statutory bar with precedents under the Human Organs Act (Jeewan Kumar Raut) and Drugs & Cosmetics Act (Ashok Kumar Sharma). However, this bar applies strictly to PCPNDT offences and does not restrict the police from investigating independent IPC or BNS offences arising from the same facts.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Kotiswar Singh elaborated a seven-point coordination protocol for cases involving overlapping PCPNDT and general penal offences, it noted:

1. 1.Where information received by a police station, on its reasonable reading, discloses only a contravention of the PC & PNDT Act or Rules, the police shall make appropriate station/diary entry and transmit the information and accompanying material without avoidable delay to the notified AA. The police shall not commence an independent investigation of the PC & PNDT offence. The AA shall thereafter act under the applicable provisions of the PC & PNDT Act.
2. 2.Where the same information also discloses the ingredients of an independently constituted cognizable IPC/BNS offence or offence under another general penal law, the police may register and investigate that distinct offence in accordance with law without touching upon the PC & PNDT component. The PC & PNDT component shall simultaneously be communicated to the AA. The mere fact that the same facts, persons, premises or records overlap shall not authorise police to investigate the PC & PNDT offence itself.
3. 3.If, during a lawful investigation of an IPC/BNS offence, material reasonably indicates a possible contravention of the PC & PNDT Act, the investigating officer shall promptly notify the AA and place the relevant information/material before it. The AA shall decide whether and how to invoke its statutory powers. The police may continue their independent IPC/BNS investigation only in respect of the component involving IPC/BNS offences and may assist the AA only when such assistance is sought by the AA.
4. 4.If the AA, while acting under the PC & PNDT Act, comes across material disclosing a distinct IPC/BNS offence, it shall promptly communicate the information and relevant material to the jurisdictional police without venturing into that arena. Such communication shall not interrupt or transfer the AA's PC & PNDT investigation. On being communicated, the police shall independently determine the course required by the general criminal law.
5. 5.Any police assistance in the PC & PNDT investigation shall ordinarily arise from a specific request from the AA, and shall remain supplemental to the AA-led investigation. The police shall not venture into the domain of the AA unless specifically requested by the AA. The nature and purpose of substantial police assistance should be recorded by the AA in its file and, where appropriate, by the police in the relevant diary as the statutory mandate is not to involve the police in the investigation, as far as possible. Thus, the AA cannot abdicate its functions, which essentially fall upon it, on the pretext of seeking assistance from the police. The statute contemplates only a minimal role for the police in investigations relating to the PC & PNDT Act. It also goes without saying that such assistance rendered by the Police to the AA shall never be converted into independent police investigation into the Page 15 of 16 PC & PNDT case or culminate into the police chargesheet.
6. 6.In an IPC/BNS investigation arising from the same medical transaction, the police may seek from the AA inspection findings, statutory forms, registration records, seizure records, technical opinion or other material lawfully available with it. Likewise, the AA may seek lawful forensic, digital, logistical or protective assistance from police without surrendering its statutory decision-making responsibility.
7. 7.Neither agency shall assume a power merely because the other offence arises from the same transaction. The controlling question is whether the ingredients of the offence being investigated and the statutory source of investigative power place that subject within the agency's lawful field. Doubt as to a possible PC & PNDT contravention should be resolved by prompt reference to the AA rather than by police assumption of the special investigation, as the AA has been given the exclusive authority under the Act to investigate. The AA, because of the specialised nature of its Page 16 of 16 composition, will be in a better position to ascertain whether such an offence is covered by the PC & PNDT Act.

Accordingly, the Court answered the reference against permitting police-led investigation or police-chargesheet-based cognizance under the Act, and remanded the matter to the Allahabad High Court to decide the underlying quashing petition in light of this judgment.

Cause Title: State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Dr. Brij Pal Singh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 901)

Appearances:

Appellant: Vishwa Pal Singh, Divyesh Pratap Singh, Srikant Singh, Akash, Srajan Shankar Kulshreshtha, Amit Kumar, Manoj Sharma, Danish Alvi, Pramod Kumar Dubey, Senior Advocate, Vikalp Sharma, Satyam Sharma, Pranteek Uniyal, Prachi Dubey, Rup Raj Banerjee, R.B. Siddhartha, Yash Saxena, Jot Parkash Singh Teji, Prachi Dubey, Yadish Arora, Mukta Gupta, Nitin Saluja, Nitya Gupta, Vittal Bala Subrahamanyam, Ishita Soni, Pranya Madan, Karan Singh, Advocates.

Respondent: Kamal Kumar Pandey, Pawan Kumar Shukla, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Sk Warish Ali, Raj Singh Rana, G. P. Mahto, Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Madhulika Upadhyay, A.K. Srivastava, Seema Bengani, Nachiketa Joshi, Amit Sharma-B, Prashant Singh-A, Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Ayush Anand, Seema Bengani, Kartik Dey, Sahil Bhacotia, Hritik Pathak, Sanjana, Aditya Kashyap, Vikalp Sharma, Palash Soni, Harshit Sharma, Atharva Kamble, Sakshi Arora, Nishita Gupta, Ramneek Kaur, Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Priyal Gupta, Akash Awana, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment