Police Cannot Investigate PCPNDT Act Offences: State of U.P. v. Brij Pal Singh [2026 INSC 901]

In State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Brij Pal Singh & Anr. (2026 INSC 901), the Supreme Court answered a reference certified by the Allahabad High Court and held that, reading Sections 17, 27 and 28 of the Pre-conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 together with Rule 18A(3)(iv), the Appropriate Authority (AA) alone is competent to investigate offences under the Act, the police can only play a supplemental role when the AA requires it, and no court can take cognizance on a police chargesheet (paras 10.1–10.7, 11). A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol (author) and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, who wrote a concurring opinion laying down a coordination protocol between the AA and the police, remanded the matter to the High Court (para 12).

Status: Reference answered; matter remanded to the Allahabad High Court for decision in accordance with the judgment; appeal disposed of (paras 12–13).

Headnote: Police Role Under the PCPNDT Act

Pre-conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 – Sections 17(4), 17A, 27, 28, 30 – PCPNDT Rules, 1996 – Rule 18A(3)(iv) – Cognizable, non-bailable offence – Registration of FIR – Police investigation – Appropriate Authority – Cognizance on police chargesheet – Special law v. general procedural law – Section 4 BNSS / Section 5 CrPC – Harmonious construction – Lalita Kumari – Dual-track investigation of IPC/BNS offences.

Held: (i) The PCPNDT Act is a special law which lays down its own enforcement mechanism; under Section 17(4) the power to investigate complaints rests with the AA, and on completion of investigation the court takes cognizance on the AA's complaint, completing the loop (paras 10.1, 10.2).

(ii) The word "cognizable" in Section 27 does not by itself give the police power to investigate offences under the Act; reading it so would defeat the specialised scheme, and the non-bailable label does not enable the police to play any investigative role (para 10.2).

(iii) Section 28 creates a mandatory, prohibitory jurisdictional bar: cognizance can be taken only on a complaint by the AA or authorised officer, or by a person (including a social organisation) after 15 days' notice to the AA; a police chargesheet would therefore be nugatory (para 10.3).

(iv) Rule 18A(3)(iv), framed under Section 32 and laid before Parliament under Section 34, has statutory force; "as far as possible" gives the AA a discretion to involve the police, who may then act only in a supplemental or aiding capacity (para 10.4).

(v) Lalita Kumari does not help: the preliminary inquiry can include whether the police have jurisdiction to investigate at all, and for PCPNDT offences the answer is negative (para 10.5).

(vi) The restriction applies only to offences under the Act; the police may investigate and prosecute independent IPC/BNS offences arising from the same facts (paras 10.2, 10.7, 11).

(paras 10–11)

Case Details: State of U.P. v. Brij Pal Singh (2026 INSC 901)

Final Outcome: Reference answered against police registration of FIRs, police investigation and cognizance on police chargesheets for PCPNDT Act offences; matter remanded to the High Court; appeal disposed of.

Case: State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Brij Pal Singh & Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 901

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2938 of 2025

Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) – Reportable

Date of Decision: 20 August 2026

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol (author) and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh (separate concurring opinion)

Relevant Acts & Sections: Pre-conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 – Sections 17, 17A, 27, 28, 30, 32, 34; PCPNDT Rules, 1996 – Rule 18A(3); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 5, 154, 482; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 4; Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 315, 511; Constitution of India – Articles 134(1)(c), 134-A

Impugned Order: Judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad accepting the respondent's Section 482 CrPC petition to quash the chargesheet arising from FIR No. 628 of 2017, and certifying three questions for appeal under Article 134-A read with Article 134(1)(c) (paras 1–2)

Counsel: Ms. Mukta Gupta, Senior Advocate, as amicus curiae (through Mr. Nitin Saluja, AoR); submissions were also made by Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal and Mr. Gyanendra Kumar, Senior Advocates, Ms. Sakshi Arora, Mr. Harshit Sharma, Mr. Vikalp Sharma and Ms. Meera Kaura Patel, Advocates, and on behalf of the Union of India and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (para 5)

Source: Supreme Court of India (official website)

Key Holdings of the Supreme Court

• Registration of an FIR for offences under the PCPNDT Act is not permissible merely because Section 27 makes them cognizable and non-bailable; the police are not meant to be investigators under the Act (para 11, Answer 1).
• The Appropriate Authority is the only competent authority to investigate PCPNDT offences; the police may at best play a supplemental role when required by the AA and under its supervision (paras 10.7, 11, Answer 2).
• A Magistrate cannot take cognizance of a PCPNDT offence on a police chargesheet, as Section 28 is a complete statutory embargo except on a complaint in the manner it provides (para 11, Answer 3).
• Rule 18A(3)(iv) has statutory force; "as far as possible" vests discretion in the AA, not in the police (para 10.4).
• Where Sections 27 and 28 cannot be harmonised, the later and leading provision, Section 28, prevails, so that "cognizable" cannot water down the object of the statute (para 10.6).
• Police power to investigate independent offences under the IPC/BNS is not restricted (paras 10.2, 10.7, 11).

Brief Facts of the Case

On secret information of illegal sex determination of foetuses being carried out by Respondent No. 1 and others, the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar, being the Appropriate Authority, deputed a Tehsildar as the Authorised Officer to conduct a decoy operation. A raid followed at the hospital, and FIR No. 628 of 2017 led to a chargesheet under Sections 315 and 511 IPC and Sections 4, 5(2), 6(a), 23 and 25 of the PCPNDT Act (para 1).

The respondent filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash the chargesheet. The learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court accepted the petition but, noticing conflicting views of various High Courts on the role of the police, certified three questions for appeal under Article 134-A read with Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution (paras 1–3).

The High Courts had divided on whether the police could register FIRs and investigate PCPNDT offences, and whether a Magistrate could take cognizance of the resulting chargesheet (para 3).

By order dated 28 April 2026, the Supreme Court appointed Ms. Mukta Gupta, Senior Advocate, as amicus curiae and invited assistance from the Bar (para 5).

Issues Before the Supreme Court

• Whether, for offences under the PCPNDT Act, registration of an FIR at the police station is permissible merely because the offences have been made cognizable and non-bailable (para 2, Question 1).
• Whether police investigation is permissible for offences under the PCPNDT Act, and who can investigate complaints of violation of the Act (para 2, Question 2).
• Whether, on a chargesheet submitted after police investigation, the competent Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence under the PCPNDT Act (para 2, Question 3).

Court's Findings and Reasoning

Scheme of the Act: Section 17(4)(c) and (e) make investigation of complaints and independent investigations a function of the AA; Section 17A gives it powers of summons, production and search warrants; Section 28 restricts cognizance to complaints; and Section 30 gives the AA search and seizure powers with such assistance as it considers necessary (paras 6.2–6.6).

Earlier decisions: In Manvinder Singh Gill, Mohammad Imtiyaz, Ravinder Kumar and Naresh Kumar Garg, the Court's view had been consistent that Sections 27 and 28 do not confer power on the police, though it had not been laid down expressly (paras 7–8).

Analogous statutes: The Court surveyed the TOHO Act (Jeewan Kumar Raut), the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (Ashok Kumar Sharma), the MMDR Act (Sanjay), the Wildlife (Protection) Act (Murad Ali Khan) and the U.P. conversion law (Rajendra Bihari Lal). TOHO, the conversion law and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act completely prohibit police investigation and police-report cognizance, while the MMDR and Wildlife Acts restrict police powers only for offences under those Acts (para 9.6).

Special law prevails: As a special law, the PCPNDT Act's procedure must be followed. The argument that the CrPC/BNSS applies because it is not expressly excluded was rejected; the legislature applied the CrPC expressly only to search and seizure under Section 30(2), and the "reason to believe" standard in Section 30(1) is placed on the AA (para 10.1).

"Cognizable" in Section 27: Reading "cognizable" as giving the police power to investigate without the court's permission would fall foul of the special statute. The police lack the medical and technical expertise required, and the non-bailable label does not enable any police investigative role. The Ministry's SOP also contemplates only limited, ancillary assistance by the police (para 10.2).

Futility of a police chargesheet: A police investigation must end in a closure report or chargesheet, but the court cannot take cognizance of the chargesheet due to Section 28's bar, so the effort would be nugatory. Section 28 lets a "person" complain only with notice to the AA, and the Explanation extends "person" only to social organisations, not the police as an institution (para 10.3).

Rule 18A(3)(iv): Relying on the PEPSU RTC case, (2011) 11 SCC 702, the Rules have statutory force. Following Narmada Bachao Andolan, "as far as possible" confers a discretion on the AA to involve the police, who must then act strictly in a supplemental capacity. The Act has enough checks, including parliamentary scrutiny of rules and the Advisory Committee (para 10.4).

Lalita Kumari: The categories of preliminary inquiry in Lalita Kumari are non-exhaustive; it is within the scope of such inquiry to see whether the police have jurisdiction at all, and for PCPNDT offences there is no police power to investigate (para 10.5).

Harmonious construction: The Court accepted the amici's call for harmonious construction over the Union's surplusage argument. Section 27 merely describes the character of offences; Section 28 provides the mandatory and exclusive cognizance route, and as the later provision it prevails (para 10.6).

Concurring opinion: Justice Kotiswar Singh added that the same transaction may lead to two parallel tracks: the AA investigating the PCPNDT component and the police investigating a genuinely distinct IPC/BNS offence. The police cannot use a general offence as a gateway to take over the PCPNDT inquiry, nor can the special Act shield a distinct IPC/BNS offence. He laid down guidelines for referral and mutual assistance between the AA and the police (concurring opinion, paras 2, 11–13).

Final Outcome and Directions

• Question 1: Police are not meant to be investigators under the Act; an FIR cannot be taken to its logical conclusion under the Act's procedures. The restriction does not affect independent IPC/BNS offences (para 11).
• Question 2: Investigation is the AA's responsibility under Section 17(4); the police cannot be the main investigating authority and may at best play a supplemental role as and when required by the AA under its supervision (para 11).
• Question 3: The competent Magistrate cannot take cognizance of a PCPNDT offence upon a police chargesheet (para 11).
• The matter was remanded to the High Court to be decided in accordance with the judgment, and the appeal was disposed of (paras 12–13).
• Per the concurring opinion, a police station receiving information disclosing only a PCPNDT contravention must make a diary entry and transmit it to the AA without delay; any police assistance must ordinarily follow a specific request by the AA, be recorded, and never become an independent police investigation or chargesheet (concurring opinion, paras 13.1–13.7).

Legal Principle Laid Down

Under the PCPNDT Act, the Appropriate Authority is the exclusive investigating authority; Section 27's description of offences as cognizable and non-bailable does not authorise police registration of FIRs or police investigation of those offences, and Section 28 bars cognizance on a police chargesheet. The police may act only in a supplemental capacity at the AA's request, while retaining full power over distinct IPC/BNS offences (paras 10.7, 11).

Precedents Relied Upon

• State of M.P. v. Manvinder Singh Gill, SLP (Crl.) No. 2226/2014 – only notified or authorised officers can complain under Section 28 (para 7.1).
• State of Rajasthan v. Mohammad Imtiyaz, SLP (Crl.) No. 103 of 2023 – quashing of FIR-based proceedings upheld (para 7.2).
• Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2495 – unilateral search by AA Chairman illegal (para 7.3).
• Naresh Kumar Garg (Dr.) v. State of Haryana, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 295 – Rule 18A guidelines (para 7.4).
• Jeewan Kumar Raut v. CBI, (2009) 7 SCC 526 – TOHO Act (para 9.1).
• Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma, (2021) 12 SCC 674 – Drugs and Cosmetics Act (para 9.2).
• State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772 – MMDR Act, dual track for IPC offences (paras 9.3, 10.2).
• State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, (1988) 4 SCC 655 – Wildlife (Protection) Act (para 9.4).
• Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2265 – U.P. conversion law (para 9.5).
• Parvinder Singh v. Enforcement Directorate, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 903; Moti Lal v. CBI, (2002) 4 SCC 713 – special procedure under special law (para 10.1).
• PEPSU RTC case, (2011) 11 SCC 702; State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011) 7 SCC 639 – statutory force of rules and "as far as possible" (para 10.4).
• Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. – registration of FIR and preliminary inquiry (para 10.5).
• Govt. of T.N. v. Park View Enterprises, (2001) 1 SCC 742; Shamarao V. Parulekar v. DM, Thana, (1952) 2 SCC 1; CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, (2003) 3 SCC 57 – interpretation of conflicting provisions (para 10.6).

Important Paragraphs of the Judgment

The following passages are reproduced verbatim from the judgment.

Para 8: "From all these judgements it appears that the view of the Court has been consistent, Sections 27 and 28 do not confer power on the police, but granted the same has not been stated as an explicit position in law, let us proceed further."

Para 10.2: "That word does not enable the police to play any investigative role in the matter."

Para 10.3: "The Court cannot take cognizance thereof due to the mandatory jurisdictional bar under Section 28, and, as such, the effort made by the police would result in being nugatory in the eyes of law."

Para 10.4: "Consequently, it can be held that there is discretion in the hands of AA to involve the police as and when it is felt that their assistance is required."

Para 10.7: "In effect, there is a bar on the police being the investigator under this Act."

Para 11: "The competent Magistrate shall not be able to take cognizance upon the filing of a chargesheet."

Practical Impact of the Ruling

• For Appropriate Authorities: Investigation, search and the decision to file a complaint under Section 28 rest with the AA; it cannot abdicate these functions on the pretext of seeking police help (paras 10.1, 10.7; concurring opinion, para 13.5).
• For police: Information disclosing only a PCPNDT violation must be passed to the AA, not converted into an FIR and chargesheet; police may still investigate distinct IPC/BNS offences (para 11; concurring opinion, paras 13.1–13.2).
• For doctors and clinics: PCPNDT prosecutions launched on police chargesheets are liable to fail for want of a valid Section 28 complaint (para 11).
• For Magistrates: Cognizance of PCPNDT offences can be taken only on a complaint under Section 28, never on a police report (para 11).
• For High Courts: The reference settles the conflict among High Courts on police FIRs and investigation under the Act (paras 3, 11).

FAQs on Police Investigation Under the PCPNDT Act

1. What did the Supreme Court hold in State of U.P. v. Brij Pal Singh?

It held that police cannot register FIRs for or investigate PCPNDT Act offences merely because they are cognizable; the Appropriate Authority alone investigates, and Magistrates cannot take cognizance on a police chargesheet (para 11).

2. Does "cognizable" in Section 27 allow police investigation?

No. Section 27 only describes the nature of the offences; Section 28's exclusive complaint route prevails, and "cognizable" cannot water down the object of the statute (paras 10.2, 10.6).

3. Can the police play any role in PCPNDT cases?

Yes, but only a supplemental one, when the AA requires their assistance and under its supervision, as Rule 18A(3)(iv) gives the AA discretion to involve the police "as far as possible" (paras 10.4, 11).

4. What if the same facts disclose an IPC/BNS offence?

The police may register and investigate the distinct IPC/BNS offence, but the PCPNDT component must go to the AA; overlap of facts does not let the police take over the PCPNDT investigation (para 10.7; concurring opinion, paras 11, 13.2).

5. What happened to the respondent's case?

After answering the reference, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Allahabad High Court for decision in accordance with the judgment (para 12).

Keywords: 2026 INSC 901, State of U.P. v. Brij Pal Singh, PCPNDT Act, Section 27 PCPNDT cognizable, Section 28 PCPNDT cognizance, Appropriate Authority investigation, police FIR PCPNDT, Rule 18A(3)(iv), sex determination prosecution, complaint case, special law v. CrPC, BNSS Section 4, Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court judgment

Related on LegalTaxGuru

• More Supreme Court Reportable judgments
• Civil/Criminal articles

Download Judgment PDF – State of U.P. v. Brij Pal Singh

Judgment PDF: 2026 INSC 901 – State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Brij Pal Singh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 2938 of 2025) – Download Judgment PDF

Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).