Section 27. Offence to be cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable
Every offence under this Act shall be cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable.
Judgements applying section 27
The Court held that despite offences under the PC & PNDT Act being cognizable, the Appropriate Authority is the sole investigating body, and police cannot register an FIR or file a chargesheet for such offences.
PC&PNDT Act, 1994 - Section 28 - cognizance restriction - police investigation and charge-sheet under IPC - Revision against rejection of discharge (S.227 Cr.PC) dismissed.
DismissedOpenTwo connected petitions challenged an FIR and a complaint filed under the PCPNDT Act 1994 alleging sex determination offences. Holding cognizance permissible only via complaint by the Appropriate Authority or authorised officer, the High Court quashed FIR No. 2/2014 and Complaint No.
DisposedOpenPCPNDT Act 1994 Section 28 cognizance only on complaint by Appropriate Authority or authorised officer; FIR under Section 154 CrPC not permissible for PCPNDT offences; special statute self-contained code; Sections 4 and 5 CrPC saving special law; FIR No.
AllowedOpenDr. Randhawa Ultrasonography Imaging and Research Institute & Ors. Vs State & Anr.
Writ Petition (Criminal)Quashing of PC&PNDT FIR refused | Section 28 PC&PNDT Act bars only cognizance, not FIR registration or police investigation | Rule 18A(3)(iv) does not oust police | DAA West District held competent Appropriate Authority;
Writ Petition (Criminal)OpenHospital staff sought quashing of proceedings for alleged illegal sex-selection activities. The Court found no direct allegation of sex determination, no cheating or miscarriage without good faith, and no complaint by the Appropriate Authority under Section 28 PCPNDT Act, and quashed C.C.No.643 of 2023.
AllowedOpen
Show 4 more
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings under Sections 25/27/28 PCPNDT Act arising from irregularities at a hospital ultrasound centre. The court held that the applicant's defence of forged documents could be tested at trial, not at quashing stage, and rejected the application.
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings under Sections 25/27/28 PCPNDT Act arising from irregularities at a hospital ultrasound centre. The court held that the applicant's defence of forged documents could be tested at trial, not at quashing stage, and rejected the application.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY , THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8080 OF 2024 Between: AND 1 2 Dr. Katta
AllowedOpenJharkhand High Court, Ranchi; B.A. No.3142 of 2024; regular bail granted on 21.06.2024 by Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava; Telaiya P.S Case No. 32 of 2024; Koderma; offences under Sections 315, 511, 420, 467, 468 IPC and Sections 23(1), 25, 27, 29 P.C. & P.N.D.T. Act, 1994;
BailOpen