Section 28. Cognizance of offences
(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a complaint made by
(a) the Appropriate Authority concerned, or any officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be, or the Appropriate Authority; or
(b) a person who has given notice of not less than 1[fifteen days] in the manner prescribed, to the Appropriate Authority, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint to the court.
Explanation.-- For the purpose of this clause, "person" includes a social organisation.
(2) No court other than that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act.
(3) Where a complaint has been made under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the court may, on demand by such person, direct the Appropriate Authority to make available copies of the relevant records in its possession to such person.
How courts have applied section 28
- Cognizance of an offence under the Act is barred except on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority, an authorised officer, or a person giving fifteen days' notice.1,2,3,4
- A police report under Section 173 CrPC is not a complaint for Section 28; FIR-based proceedings under the Act are vitiated.5,2,6,4,7
- The police may investigate distinct general penal offences even when the transaction also involves the Act.5,8
- A complaint by a person not authorised, such as a Deputy Civil Surgeon acting alone, is illegal.1,3
- An officer authorised under Section 17(3) of the Act can file a competent complaint.9,10
- Evidence seized in an illegal search is not automatically excluded if otherwise relevant and admissible.11
Read the full overviewShow less· 4 paragraphs
The judgements here mostly concern whether courts could take cognizance of offences under the Act on a police report or FIR, and whether complaints were filed by the proper authority. Courts repeatedly held that under Section 28 cognizance may be taken only on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority, an authorised officer, or a person who gave the required notice, and that proceedings founded on an FIR are vitiated. Several orders quashed charge-sheets, summoning orders and entire proceedings where a police report was used instead of a complaint by the competent authority.1,2,6,3,4,12,13,7,14
The condition that the complainant be the Appropriary Authority or an authorised officer was applied strictly. A complaint filed by the Deputy Civil Surgeon alone, without any decision of the District Appropriate Authority, was illegal. A complaint by a person not so authorised was incompetent. However, a complaint by an Additional Chief Medical Officer who was authorised under Section 17(3) was competent; that part of the judgement did not quash the proceedings.1,3,9,10
The Supreme Court clarified the relationship between the special procedure and other penal law. Offences under the Act are cognizable and non-bailable, but investigation rests exclusively with the Appropriate Authority; a police report under Section 173 CrPC is premature and impermissible for taking cognizance of these offences. Where a transaction involves both PCPNDT contraventions and distinct general penal offences, the police retain jurisdiction over the general penal aspects while the Appropriate Authority investigates the special-law components. The Gujarat High Court reached a similar result, holding that Section 28 does not bar police investigation of IPC offences detected during investigation prompted by the SDM's complaint.5,8
One Supreme Court judgement distinguished the search's legality from evidence's admissibility: a search by a single member of the District Appropriate Authority is illegal, but evidence seized in such an illegal search can be relied upon if relevant and admissible; a prior discharge in a related police investigation does not bar the Appropriate Authority from instituting independent complaint proceedings. A separate line of High Court judgements quashed proceedings where the suspension of a clinic's registration had automatically ended, so the alleged unlawful ultrasound did not occur during suspension. The Allahabad High Court also refused to quash proceedings where the accused denied authorisation, holding such claims are defences for trial.11,15,16,17
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 28
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal seeking to quash a criminal complaint under the PCPNDT Act. The Court held that while a search conducted by a single authority member was illegal under Section 30, the seized evidence remained admissible.
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.
Pre Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 – ss. 30(1), 17, 2(a) – 'has reason to believe' – Search and seizure of a Genetic Clinic: the condition precedent for search is that the multi-member Appropriate Authority must have reason to believe that an offence under the…
AllowedOpenPetition to quash an FIR under the PC-PNDT Act alleging illegal sex-determination ultrasound during a decoy raid. The Court held proceedings were vitiated as the raid and complaint were not authorised by the District Appropriate Authority, quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
AllowedOpenQuashing of PC&PNDT Act complaint under Section 482 CrPC; suspension notice dated 4.3.2014 'till submission of required registration with State Medical Council'; automatic revocation of suspension on submission of registration on 7.3.2014; formal revocation 29.3.2014 immaterial;
DisposedOpenSection 482 Cr.P.C. quashing; PC&PNDT Act, 1994 offences; ultrasound clinic temporary suspension and automatic revocation on submission of State Medical Council registration; Form-F furnishing before complaint; Bhajan Lal categories applied; private complaint (Maneesh Srivastava) and State complaint No.
DisposedOpen
Show 6 more
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.
DismissedOpenApplication 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.
Applicants sought quashing of criminal proceedings under the PCPNDT Act and BNS sections arising from an FIR, arguing cognizance was barred absent a complaint by the competent authority.
Quashing on Section 28 PCPNDT Act parity. Allahabad High Court, Saurabh Srivastava J., September 25, 2025; Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 37644 of 2025; Rahul Bhati and another v. State of U.P. and another; applicants implicated alongside co-accused Praveen Kumar and 2 others (Application u/s 528 BNSS No.
Allahabad High Court, Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:83912; Application U/S 482 No. 36174 of 2024, decided 19.5.2025 by Saurabh Srivastava, J.; applicant Dr Dheeraj Raghav @ Dheeraj Singh Raghav vs State of U.P.; quashing of charge-sheet dated 14.05.2023 and cognizance/summoning order dated 02.09.2023 in Criminal Case No.
Two 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.
DisposedOpen
Gayatri Nanjundappa @ Dr. Gayatri Singh vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another
Outcome: DismissedPCPNDT Act 1994 prosecution; cognizance under Section 28(1)(a) on complaint by officer authorised by the Appropriate Authority (Section 17(3)); District Magistrate authorization dated 18.08.2008 of Additional Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow to file complaint; single-member authorization objection;
DismissedOpenGayatri Nanjundappa @ Dr. Gayatri Singh vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another
Outcome: DismissedPCPNDT Act 1994 prosecution; cognizance under Section 28(1)(a) on complaint by officer authorised by the Appropriate Authority (Section 17(3)); District Magistrate authorization dated 18.08.2008 of Additional Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow to file complaint; single-member authorization objection;
DismissedOpenPCPNDT 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.
AllowedOpenApplicants sought quashing of criminal proceedings under the PCPNDT Act and BNS sections arising from an FIR, arguing cognizance was barred absent a complaint by the competent authority.
Quashing on Section 28 PCPNDT Act parity. Allahabad High Court, Saurabh Srivastava J., September 25, 2025; Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 37644 of 2025; Rahul Bhati and another v. State of U.P. and another; applicants implicated alongside co-accused Praveen Kumar and 2 others (Application u/s 528 BNSS No.
Allahabad High Court allows application under Section 528 BNSS (No. 34138 of 2025, Sachin Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P.) quashing summoning order dated 17.05.2025, charge sheet and entire proceedings in Criminal Case no. 3732/2025 arising from Case Crime no.
Show 4 more
Allahabad High Court allows application under Section 528 BNSS (No. 34138 of 2025, Sachin Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P.) quashing summoning order dated 17.05.2025, charge sheet and entire proceedings in Criminal Case no. 3732/2025 arising from Case Crime no.
PCPNDT Act 1994 Section 28 cognizance only upon complaint by competent authority; FIR-initiated proceedings quashed on parity with Praveen Kumar and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and another (Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 11599 of 2025, judgment dated 15.05.2025); summoning order dated 17.02.2025 of CJM Baghpat quashed;
Key themes for retrieval: quashing of charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning order and entire criminal proceedings as abuse of process; application under Section 528 BNSS;
Punjab and Haryana High Court, CRM-A-2184-MA-2016 (O&M), Rajesh Bhardwaj J., decided 18.08.2025: State of Haryana's leave-to-appeal application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C.
DisposedOpen
Related subjects
- Quashing and FIR4,33,347