Cognizable Vs. Non-Cognizable Offences
What are Cognizable Offences?
Definition: Cognizable offences are serious crimes where the police have the authority to register an FIR, investigate the case, and arrest the accused without prior approval from a magistrate.
Examples: Murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, theft, etc.
Legal Implication: Police take immediate action without court permission.
Under Indian Law: Section 2(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) defines cognizable offences.
What are Non-Cognizable Offences?
Definition: Non-cognizable offences are minor offences where police cannot register FIR or start investigation without magistrate’s permission.
Examples: Public nuisance, defamation, simple hurt, etc.
Legal Implication: Police cannot investigate or arrest without magistrate’s orders.
Under Indian Law: Section 2(l) of CrPC defines non-cognizable offences.
Key Differences Summary
| Feature | Cognizable Offence | Non-Cognizable Offence |
|---|---|---|
| Police Power | Can investigate without magistrate’s order | Cannot investigate without magistrate’s order |
| FIR Registration | Mandatory when information received | Police need magistrate’s permission |
| Seriousness | Serious crimes | Less serious/Minor crimes |
| Trial Court | Sessions Court | Magistrate’s Court |
Important Case Law on Cognizable and Non-Cognizable Offences
1. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992)
Facts:
The petitioner alleged malicious prosecution under cognizable offences without proper investigation.
Issue:
When can courts interfere to quash FIRs filed under cognizable offences?
Holding:
The Supreme Court laid down guidelines to prevent abuse of FIR registration in cognizable offences.
Courts can quash FIR in exceptional cases where allegations are false, frivolous, or mala fide.
Significance:
Clarifies the serious nature of cognizable offences.
Balances police powers with judicial oversight to prevent misuse.
2. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1963)
Facts:
Dispute over classification of offence as cognizable or non-cognizable affecting police powers.
Issue:
What is the legal test to determine cognizability of an offence?
Holding:
The Court held that offences involving serious harm or where police action is crucial are cognizable.
Non-cognizable offences involve minor breaches where police cannot initiate action without magistrate.
Significance:
Defined criteria for cognizability based on gravity and need for immediate police action.
3. Janhit Manch v. Union of India (2018)
Facts:
Public interest litigation regarding police refusal to register FIRs for non-cognizable offences.
Issue:
Should police refuse FIR registration outright for non-cognizable complaints?
Holding:
Court held police can record information but cannot register FIR for non-cognizable offences without magistrate.
Police should inform complainant of procedure.
Significance:
Clarified procedural steps for non-cognizable cases.
Protects citizen’s rights while upholding law.
4. Kalyaneshwari v. State of Orissa (1976)
Facts:
Issue of police investigation in a non-cognizable offence.
Issue:
Can police investigate non-cognizable offences without magistrate’s consent?
Holding:
Court held police have no authority to investigate or arrest in non-cognizable cases without magistrate’s approval.
Significance:
Reinforces limitation on police powers for non-cognizable offences.
5. State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1967)
Facts:
Court examined when police can arrest without warrant in cognizable offences.
Issue:
Does police have power to arrest without warrant in cognizable offences?
Holding:
Yes, police can arrest without warrant in cognizable offences to prevent escape or evidence tampering.
Non-cognizable offences require magistrate’s sanction.
Significance:
Demonstrated procedural difference between cognizable and non-cognizable offences.
6. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980)
Facts:
Case dealt with preventive detention based on FIR for cognizable offences.
Issue:
Can FIR for cognizable offences justify preventive detention?
Holding:
Court held FIR in cognizable offence can be a valid ground for preventive detention.
Highlights importance and gravity attached to cognizable offences.
Significance:
Reinforced legal weight of cognizable offence FIR.
Summary Table of Case Law Highlights
| Case Name | Legal Principle |
|---|---|
| State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal | Judicial review and quashing of frivolous FIRs |
| K.K. Verma v. Union of India | Criteria to determine cognizable offences |
| Janhit Manch v. Union of India | Police procedure in non-cognizable offence FIRs |
| Kalyaneshwari v. State of Orissa | Police powers restricted in non-cognizable offences |
| State of Rajasthan v. Balchand | Arrest powers in cognizable vs. non-cognizable offences |
| Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. Punjab | Preventive detention based on cognizable FIRs |
Conclusion
Cognizable offences involve serious crimes allowing police immediate action.
Non-cognizable offences are minor and require magistrate’s permission for police action.
Courts have emphasized protecting citizens from misuse while allowing police to act swiftly in serious crimes.
Judicial guidelines help balance police authority and individual rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments