Police Investigation Not Barred under PC&PNDT Act; FIR Can Proceed Alongside Complaint: Delhi High Court - 2026-05-27

Beyond the Veil of Secrecy: Delhi High Court Clarifies Police Role in PC&PNDT Cases

In a significant ruling that tightens the regulatory grip on prenatal diagnostic centers, the Delhi High Court has affirmed that the registration of an FIR and subsequent police investigation are not barred under the Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Technique (PC&PNDT) Act. The judgment, delivered by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, clarifies the boundaries of legal authority and police intervention in cases involving allegations of unregistered training programs and procedural lapses.

The Genesis of the Dispute

The petitions were filed by Dr. Randhawa Ultrasonography Imaging and Research Institute, challenging an FIR registered in 2017. Following an inspection by the District Magistrate (West District), authorities alleged that the institute was conducting unauthorized ultrasonography training under the guise of an ultrasound clinic, among other violations of PC&PNDT rules. The petitioners argued that the inspection was conducted by an authority lacking jurisdiction—contending that the South-West District was the designated body—and that the nature of the offenses precluded police involvement.

The Legal Knot: Jurisdiction and Police Authority

The petitioners advanced two primary arguments: 1. Territorial Jurisdiction : They contended that their facility fell under the purview of the South-West District Authority following a 2016 administrative shift. 2. Exclusion of Police : They argued that because Section 28 of the PC&PNDT Act dictates that courts may only take cognizance on a formal complaint by the Appropriate Authority, the involvement of the police via an FIR was legally impermissible.

The State countered that the transfer of files to the South-West District had been an administrative "inadvertence," and that the facility remained firmly within the West District’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, the State maintained that while the Act restricts who can initiate a court-level complaint, it does not strip the police of their fundamental power to investigate cognizable offenses.

Key Observations

In her detailed judgment, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna addressed the interplay between the special provisions of the PC&PNDT Act and the Indian criminal procedure:

• On Police Investigation : "From the harmonious reading of the provisions of PC & PNDT Act... it cannot be said that no FIR can be registered or that the registration of FIR is barred under PC & PNDT Act."
• On Cognizance vs. Investigation : "Section 28, therefore, makes it abundantly evident that a Complaint before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, can be initiated either by Appropriate Authority or Central Government or State Government... however, [it] nowhere bars the registration of FIR or the investigations to be conducted therein."
• On Jurisdictional Clarity : The court observed that given no official gazette notification transferred the relevant sub-division, the West District authority retained legal power: "Merely because there was inadvertent transfer of the files would not make DAA, South-West as the Competent Authority."

The Court’s Verdict

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the FIR was valid and that the West District Authority acted within its mandate when conducting the inspection. By distinguishing between the power to investigate (which remains a police function under the Code of Criminal Procedure) and the power of the court to take cognizance (which is restricted to specific authorities under the PC&PNDT Act), the court provided a roadmap for how these sensitive, specialized criminal cases should proceed.

For medical practitioners and institutions, this judgment serves as a stern reminder that administrative "inadvertence" does not immunize against regulatory enforcement, and that the police possess the reach to investigate potential violations whenever a potential crime is disclosed. The case now proceeds toward trial, leaving the factual allegations regarding the institute’s training practices to be adjudicated on their merits.