Police barred from investigating PCPNDT Act offence as principal agency; BNS probe allowed to continue, Madhya Pradesh High Court rules

A joint inspection was conducted on 27 July 2026 at R.K. Digital X-Ray and Sonography Centre, Malviya Chowk, and Saral Sonography Centre, Adhartal, Jabalpur, pursuant to allegations of illegal prenatal sex determination.

The inspection allegedly revealed irregularities in Form ‘F’ and other records maintained under the PCPNDT Act. Mobile phones, electronic devices, registers and other documents were seized, and the prosecution alleged that digital material relating to prenatal sex determination and products of conception had been found.

Crime No. 400/2026 was registered at Police Station Omti, Jabalpur, for an offence under Section 23(1) of the PCPNDT Act, Sections 272, 318(4), 61 and 3(5) of the BNS, and Section 24 of the Madhya Pradesh Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam, 1987.

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Agrawal and Dr. Satish Agrawal sought quashing of the proceedings, contending that the police lacked jurisdiction to investigate the PCPNDT offence and that no specific overt act of illegal sex determination or disclosure of foetal sex was attributed to them.

Whether the police could validly register and investigate an offence under Section 23(1) of the PCPNDT Act, and submit a police report capable of resulting in cognizance, notwithstanding Section 28 of the Act?

Whether the entire FIR was liable to be quashed merely because the allegations arose from the same transaction as the alleged PCPNDT offence, including in respect of independently constituted offences under the BNS?

Whether the proceedings for the alleged offence under Section 24 of the Madhya Pradesh Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam, 1987 could be quashed at the investigation stage on the basis of the petitioners’ asserted medical registration?

The Court applied Sections 17, 27, 28 and 30 of the PCPNDT Act and the relevant Rules.

Under the statutory scheme, investigation of PCPNDT offences is entrusted to the Appropriate Authority under Section 17(4), with police assistance being supplementary and subject to the Appropriate Authority’s supervision; Section 28 creates a complete bar against cognizance except upon a complaint by the Appropriate Authority or an authorised person.

Relying on State of U.P. & Anr. v. Dr. Brij Pal Singh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 2938 of 2025, decided on 20 August 2026, the Court held that the police cannot act as the principal investigating agency for PCPNDT offences or seek cognizance on the basis of a police charge-sheet.

However, the special procedure under the PCPNDT Act does not bar police investigation of independently constituted offences under general penal law, including the BNS.

The Court also applied the settled principle governing inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS: the power must be exercised sparingly, but proceedings expressly prohibited by a special statutory scheme cannot be permitted to continue.

The allegations concerning Form ‘F’ records, statutory compliance, seizure of electronic material and alleged prenatal sex determination fell substantially within the statutory field of the PCPNDT Act.

In view of the rule in Dr. Brij Pal Singh, the police could not investigate the Section 23(1) offence as the principal agency or file a police report seeking cognizance of that offence.

The Appropriate Authority alone could proceed under Section 17 and, if appropriate, institute a complaint in accordance with Section 28.

However, the same factual transaction could also disclose separate offences under Sections 272, 318(4), 61 and 3(5) of the BNS.

The Court therefore declined to quash the FIR in its entirety, leaving those independently constituted offences open to police investigation, while prohibiting the police from using that investigation to assume the statutory role of the Appropriate Authority under the PCPNDT Act.

With respect to Section 24 of the State medical legislation, although the petitioners produced registration documents, the Court held that the effect of those documents and the factual nature of the alleged conduct required examination during investigation and could not be conclusively determined at that stage.

Crime No. 400/2026 was quashed to the extent that it initiated or continued police investigation or prosecution for the offence under Section 23(1) of the PCPNDT Act.

The police were restrained from submitting a police report or seeking cognizance of that offence on the basis of their investigation.

The Appropriate Authority was left free to take action under the PCPNDT Act and the Rules, including filing a complaint under Section 28, if otherwise permissible in law.

The police were nevertheless permitted to investigate independently constituted offences under the BNS, including Sections 272, 318(4), 61 and 3(5), or any other offence made out from the collected material, provided they did not undertake functions reserved for the Appropriate Authority under the PCPNDT Act.