Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard a criminal appeal arising from a certificate issued by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under Article 134-A read with Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. The appeal concerned the interpretation of the Pre-conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act), specifically the role of police in investigation and the cognizance of offences. The appeal arose from a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the respondent seeking quashing of a chargesheet drawn against him under Sections 315 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4, 5(2), 6(a), 23 and 25 of the PCPNDT Act. The chargesheet flowed from FIR No. 628 of 2017, which was registered after the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar, acting as the Appropriate Authority, received secret information about illegal sex determination. A decoy operation was conducted by the Tehsildar of Khurja District, leading to a raid at a hospital and subsequent prosecution. The High Court ultimately accepted the quashing petition but, while doing so, the learned Single Judge extensively reviewed the provisions of the PCPNDT Act and decisions of various High Courts. The Single Judge noticed that contrary views had been taken on whether the police could register FIRs and investigate PCPNDT Act offences and whether a Magistrate could take cognizance of a police chargesheet. Consequently, the High Court issued a certificate of appeal framing three questions of law: whether registration of FIR at a police station is permissible for PCPNDT Act offences merely because they are made cognizable and non-bailable; whether police investigation is permissible and who can investigate complaints; and whether a competent Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence under the PCPNDT Act on a police chargesheet submitted after investigation. The background to these questions involved a split among High Courts. Some decisions, such as Dr. Varsha Gautam v. State of U.P., Dr. Rahul Malik v. State of U.P., Manoj Krishan Ahuja v. State of NCT of Delhi, Dr. Anant Ram v. State of Haryana, Dr. Aparna Singhal v. State of Haryana, Dr. Randhawa Ultrasonography Imaging and Research Institute v. State (NCT of Delhi), Uravashi Fakay v. State of NCT of Delhi, Ila Sood v. State of Punjab, and Dr. Dhamayanthi Rajkumar v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, held that police can register an FIR and investigate cognizable offences under the Act because Section 27 makes such offences cognizable and non-bailable. These decisions reasoned that investigation and cognizance are distinct stages; Section 28 bars cognizance except on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority but does not bar police investigation. Other High Court views, if any, were not fully captured in the provided excerpt. Various senior counsel and counsel appeared for the parties, including Ms. Mukta Gupta, Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Mr. Gyanendra Kumar, Ms. Sakshi Arora, Mr. Harshit Sharma, Mr. Vikalp Sharma, and Ms. Meera Kaura Patel, along with the Union of India and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Their specific submissions were not reproduced in the available judgment excerpt. The Supreme Court's analysis of the provisions and precedents was underway in the excerpt, but the final decision and ratio decidendi were not included in the provided text. The Court noted the existence of conflicting High Court decisions and the need for an authoritative determination of the three certified questions. The procedural history reflects that the High Court had accepted the quashing petition and referred the questions to the Supreme Court for a conclusive ruling on the interpretation of Sections 27 and 28 of the PCPNDT Act and related provisions of the CrPC.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Police Investigation under Special Statute - Section 27 PCPNDT Act, Section 154 CrPC - Offences under PCPNDT Act are cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable; registration of FIR by police is permissible when information discloses a cognizable offence. The court considered conflicting High Court decisions on whether police can register FIR and investigate; the question was referred for authoritative decision (Paras 2-3). B) Criminal Procedure - Cognizance by Magistrate - Section 28 PCPNDT Act, Section 190 CrPC - Section 28 prohibits cognizance except on complaint by appropriate authority or authorized person; a police report is distinct from a complaint, so cognizance solely on police chargesheet is barred. The court examined whether Magistrate can take cognizance on police chargesheet; conflicting views referred (Paras 2-3). C) Criminal Procedure - Who Can Investigate - Sections 17(4), 27 PCPNDT Act, Section 4(2) CrPC - Appropriate Authority's investigative powers are not exclusive; police retain general power to investigate cognizable offences under special law unless expressly barred. The court noted divergence among High Courts on this issue; question referred (Paras 3). D) Statutory Interpretation - Cognizable Offence and Investigation - Rule 18A(3)(iv) PCPNDT Rules, Sections 27,28 PCPNDT Act - Phrase 'as far as possible' indicates police investigation discouraged but not absolutely barred; bar applies at cognizance stage. The court considered whether police investigation is permissible; issue referred for determination (Paras 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether, for offences under the PC & PNDT Act, the registration of FIR at the police station is permissible merely because the offences have been made cognizable and non-bailable; Whether police investigation is permissible for offences under the PC & PNDT Act and who can investigate complaints received for violation of the Act; Whether on the chargesheet submitted after investigation by the police, the competent magistrate can take cognizance of the offence under the PC & PNDT Act
Law Points
- Offences under PCPNDT Act are cognizable
- non-bailable
- and non-compoundable under Section 27
- Section 28 bars cognizance except on complaint by appropriate authority
- Investigation and cognizance are distinct stages
- Police registration of FIR for cognizable offence is mandated under Section 154 CrPC
- Appropriate Authority's investigative powers under Section 17(4) are not exclusive
- Statutory bar on cognizance does not bar investigation
