STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. BRIJ PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal proceeds on a certificate issued by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and under Article 134-A read with Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India regarding the interpretation of the provisions of the Pre-conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994[PCPNDT Act /the act], arising out of a petition under Sec. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[CrPC] filed by the Respondent, seeking quashing of the chargesheet drawn against him under Ss. 315 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[ IPC] and Ss. 4, 5(2), 6(a), 23 and 25 of the PCPNDT Act, flowing from FIR No. 628 of 2017. The FIR was a consequence of secret information having been received by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar, who is the appropriate authority[AA] within the Act, of illegal sex determination of foetus, being carried out by Respondent no.1 and others, who then deputed the Tehsildar of the Khurja District as the Authorised Officer[AO] to conduct a decoy operation to unearth the truth. Having found out information through such operation, a raid was conducted at the hospital, which led to the initiation of proceedings, the subject matter of the quashing petition.

(2.) While the quashing petition ultimately came to be accepted, the learned Single Judge undertook an extensive overview of the provisions of the Act and the decisions given by other High Courts, eventually to point out that contrary views had been taken on the same question regarding the role of police in investigation and the applicable procedure in PCPNDT Act offences. As such, considering the importance of the questions involved, the learned Single Judge issued the certificate of appeal, observing as under:

(3.) The background to these questions is the difference of opinions between High Courts on whether State Police is competent to register FIRs and investigate offences under the Act and also whether the concerned Magistrate can take cognizance of the chargesheet so filed. The following two tables encapsulate the judgments considered by the Learned Single Judge to frame the questions for consideration we extracted above. <IMG>JUDGEMENT_87_LAWS(SC)8_2026_1.jpg</IMG> <IMG>JUDGEMENT_87_LAWS(SC)8_2026_2.jpg</IMG> <IMG>JUDGEMENT_87_LAWS(SC)8_2026_3.jpg</IMG> <IMG>JUDGEMENT_87_LAWS(SC)8_2026_4.jpg</IMG> <IMG>JUDGEMENT_87_LAWS(SC)8_2026_5.jpg</IMG> <IMG>JUDGEMENT_87_LAWS(SC)8_2026_6.jpg</IMG> <IMG>JUDGEMENT_87_LAWS(SC)8_2026_7.jpg</IMG> <IMG>JUDGEMENT_87_LAWS(SC)8_2026_8.jpg</IMG> <IMG>JUDGEMENT_87_LAWS(SC)8_2026_9.jpg</IMG> <IMG>JUDGEMENT_87_LAWS(SC)8_2026_10.jpg</IMG> <IMG>JUDGEMENT_87_LAWS(SC)8_2026_11.jpg</IMG> <IMG>JUDGEMENT_87_LAWS(SC)8_2026_12.jpg</IMG> <IMG>JUDGEMENT_87_LAWS(SC)8_2026_13.jpg</IMG>