The Supreme Court docket as we speak held that police can not register FIR and act as the principle investigating authority for offences underneath the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Strategies (Prohibition of Intercourse Choice) Act, 1994 (PC & PNDT Act). The Court docket held that the Applicable Authority constituted underneath the Act is answerable for investigating complaints, whereas police can at most play a supplemental position when required by the Applicable Authority.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh pronounced judgment in a case in regards to the scope of police powers to register FIRs and examine offences underneath the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Strategies (Prohibition of Intercourse Choice) Act, 1994 (PC & PNDT Act).
The Court docket additionally held {that a} competent Justice of the Peace can not take cognizance of an offence underneath the Act on the idea of a chargesheet filed after a police investigation.
The case arises from an Allahabad Excessive Court docket judgment dated September 30, 2024, which had referred three inquiries to be determined by the Supreme Court docket. The questions come up from the interaction between Part 27 and Part 28 of the Act.
Part 27 declares each offence underneath the Act to be cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable. Part 28, nevertheless, gives that no court docket can take cognizance of an offence underneath the Act besides on a criticism by the Applicable Authority or an authorised officer, or by an individual who has given at the least 15 days’ discover to the Applicable Authority of the alleged offence and of the intention to make a criticism.
The problem concerned within the current case was whether or not the declaration of offences as cognizable underneath Part 27 independently permits registration and investigation of FIRs by the police, or whether or not the particular process underneath Part 28 limits the initiation of felony proceedings to the mechanism prescribed underneath the Act. Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta together with Advocate-on-File Nitin Saluja assisted the Court docket as Amicus Curiae in analyzing the problem.
The Supreme Court docket answered the three questions as follows –
(A) Whether or not, for the offences underneath the PC & PNDT Act, the registration of FIR on the Police Station is permissible, merely as a result of the offences underneath the PC & PNDT Act have been made cognizable and non-bailable?
Reply – The Supreme Court docket held that the language of Sections 27 and 28, learn with the opposite provisions of the Act and conserving in thoughts its socially helpful nature and the sensitivity and medical and technical know-how concerned, signifies that the police will not be meant to be the investigators for offences underneath the Act.
The Court docket famous that an FIR registered by the police can’t be taken to its logical conclusion underneath the process prescribed by the Act. The restriction, nevertheless, applies solely to offences underneath the PC & PNDT Act and doesn’t forestall the police from investigating and prosecuting unbiased offences underneath normal felony legislation, the Court docket clarified.
(B) Whether or not the Police investigation is permissible for the offences underneath the PC & PNDT Act? AND Who can examine the complaints, acquired for violation of the provisions of the PC & PNDT Act?
Reply – The Supreme Court docket famous that Part 17(4) of the Act makes investigation of complaints a duty of the Applicable Authority. The Court docket additionally referred to Rule 18A(3)(iv), which has statutory drive and requires that additional recourse to the police be prevented so far as potential.
The Court docket subsequently concluded that the police can’t be the principle investigative authority underneath the Act. At most, the police could play a supplemental position when required by the Applicable Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
(C) Whether or not on the cost sheet submitted after the investigation by the Police, the competent Justice of the Peace can take cognizance of the offence underneath the PC & PNDT Act?
Reply – The Supreme Court docket held that Part 28 creates a whole statutory mechanism for taking cognizance, topic to the conditions particularly offered underneath the availability. It consequently held {that a} competent Justice of the Peace can not take cognizance of an offence underneath the Act on the idea of a chargesheet filed pursuant to a police investigation.
Accordingly, the Court docket remanded the matter to the Excessive Court docket to take a call within the case in accordance with legislation.
Look –
Further Solicitor Basic Vikramjit Banerjee appeared for the Union of India whereas AOR Vishwa Pal Singh appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Senior Advocates Mukta Gupta, Pramod Kumar Dubey and Siddharth Agarwal, together with Advocates Gyanendra Kumar, Sakshi Arora, Harshit Sharma, Vikalp Sharma and Meena Kora Patel, additionally assisted the Court docket. AOR Nitin Saluja assisted the Amicus Curiae.
Crl.A. No. 2938/2025 Diary No. 22340 / 2025 THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs BRIJ PAL SINGH
