PC & PNDT Act Does Not Bar FIR Registration & Police Investigation: Delhi High Court

A Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “Though Section 28 of PC & PNDT Act is specific in providing that the cognizance can be taken only on the Complaint filed by any of the aforesaid Authority, the registration of FIR or the investigations to be conducted therein or a Charge-Sheet be filed is not barred.”

The Court added, “From the harmonious reading of the provisions of PC & PNDT Act, which make the offences as cognizable and non-bailable along with the provisions of CrPC, it cannot be said that no FIR can be registered or that the registration of FIR is barred under PC & PNDT Act.”

Senior Advocate Percival Billimoria appeared for the Petitioners, while Additional Standing Counsel Yasir Rauf Ansari represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioners, owners of a registered ultrasound clinic and imaging institute, were inspected by officials from the DAA. The Petitioners alleged that the inspection was conducted without jurisdiction, in the absence of valid seizure records, and in violation of procedural safeguards under the Act. The premises were sealed, and an FIR was registered based on the inspection.

The Petitioners contended that they fell under the jurisdiction of DAA, South-West District. They claimed that all formalities were being duly complied with before the said authority and that inspections had been conducted by the South-West District in 2017 without any adverse findings.

The Petitioners further submitted that their institute was not conducting any illegal training programme in violation of the PC-PNDT Rules and that the inspections and seizure of records were part of a targeted vendetta.

Reasoning of the Court

The Court rejected the Petitioners’ contention that the inspection and filing of FIR were without jurisdiction, stating, “Though inadvertently the Files were transferred to District Appropriate Authority, South-West in 2016, but actually as per the Notification of NCT of Delhi, this sub-division Colony never got transferred to South-West District... Therefore, it is District West, which continues to be the Appropriate Authority.”

The Court noted that both the State and Central Appellate Authorities had upheld the jurisdiction of DAA, West.

On the issue of FIR registration, the Court held, “Section 28... makes it abundantly evident that a Complaint before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, can be initiated only by specified authorities... but nowhere bars the registration of FIR or the investigations to be conducted therein.”

It added, “Rule 18A(3)(iv)... provides that as far as possible, Police being not involved for investigating cases under the Act, which again implies that the investigations by the Police, are not completely ousted.”

The Court further observed, “The offences under PC & PNDT Act are cognizable and thus, registration of FIR and investigation by the Police per se is not barred under law.”

The Court clarified that in the present case, cognizance had been taken not on the FIR or charge-sheet, but on a separate complaint filed by the DAA, in accordance with the Act.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the FIR, holding that both the inspection and subsequent complaint were lawful, and that the FIR was not barred under the PC-PNDT Act.

Cause Title: Dr. Randhawa Ultrasonography Imaging And Research Institute & Ors. v. State of NCT (Delhi) & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:3836)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Percival Billimoria; Advocate Khowaja Siddiqui, Tushar Bathija, Jay Singh, Shilpa Ohri, Aswini Kumar, Rachita Sood, Arbaz Khan

Respondents: Additional Standing Counsel (Crl.) Yasir Rauf Ansari; Advocates Alok Sharma, Amit Sahni