Cognizance By Magistrates Under Section 190
Section 190 of the CrPC deals with the power of a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offense. Taking cognizance is the first formal step in a criminal trial, where the Magistrate acknowledges that a complaint, report, or information prima facie discloses the commission of an offense, and accordingly initiates proceedings.
Key Points of Section 190 CrPC:
Cognizance can be taken in three ways:
Complaint: Upon receiving a complaint of an offense.
Police Report (FIR or charge-sheet): Upon receiving a police report.
Information or otherwise: Upon knowledge or suspicion from any other source.
Scope of Magistrate’s power:
Magistrate can decide whether a prima facie case is made out.
Magistrate can summon the accused.
Magistrate can direct investigation.
Preliminary Inquiry: Magistrate may conduct a preliminary inquiry before taking cognizance, but it is not mandatory in all cases.
Offense types: Cognizance is generally taken for offenses triable by Magistrate (except in certain cases).
Essential Elements for Cognizance:
Existence of information/complaint/report.
Information must disclose commission of a cognizable offense (serious crimes).
Magistrate satisfied with the prima facie case.
Case Law Analysis on Section 190 CrPC
Case 1: K.K Verma v. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 1031
Issue: Whether a Magistrate can take cognizance on a police report in a non-cognizable offense without prior sanction.
Facts: Police filed a report for an offense that required prior sanction before prosecution.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate cannot take cognizance of a case in the absence of sanction if required by law. The Magistrate’s power to take cognizance is subject to conditions imposed by the law.
Significance: Clarified that statutory sanctions are preconditions for taking cognizance in certain offenses.
Case 2: State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604
Issue: Scope of Magistrate’s power in taking cognizance and ordering investigation.
Facts: Petition challenging the initiation of investigation on flimsy grounds.
Judgment: The Supreme Court laid down guidelines to prevent abuse of Section 190 and Section 156(3) CrPC. It held that cognizance must be taken only when there is a reasonable basis for complaint or information.
Significance: Established the principle of judicial prudence in taking cognizance and ordering investigations.
Case 3: R.K. Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 1113
Issue: Whether Magistrate can take cognizance without complaint or police report.
Facts: The complaint was not presented; instead, the Magistrate acted on information.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that Magistrates have the power to take cognizance even ‘otherwise’ i.e., on information received from any source, not only formal complaints or police reports.
Significance: Broadened the scope of cognizance beyond formal complaints.
Case 4: Jaya Chandra v. The State, AIR 1970 SC 1233
Issue: Whether Magistrate can order investigation before taking cognizance.
Facts: Police refused to register FIR; complainant approached Magistrate.
Judgment: The Court held that Magistrate has the power to order police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC even before taking cognizance under Section 190. However, taking cognizance and ordering investigation are separate steps.
Significance: Clarified procedural distinction between investigation and cognizance.
Case 5: S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1787
Issue: Whether cognizance can be taken when there is no prima facie case.
Facts: Complaint was vague and baseless.
Judgment: The Court held that Magistrate should not take cognizance without any prima facie material or reasonable grounds. Taking cognizance without this is an abuse of process.
Significance: Emphasized that Magistrate acts as a gatekeeper to prevent frivolous prosecution.
Case 6: Bhajan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1966 SC 543
Issue: Magistrate’s power to take cognizance of non-cognizable offense.
Facts: Complaint involved a non-cognizable offense.
Judgment: The Court held that a Magistrate cannot take cognizance or order investigation for non-cognizable offenses except in special circumstances under the law.
Significance: Distinguished cognizable vs non-cognizable offenses for Magistrate’s jurisdiction.
Summary Table of Case Laws on Section 190 CrPC
| Case | Key Principle |
|---|---|
| K.K. Verma v. Union of India | Magistrate needs sanction before cognizance if law requires |
| State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal | Judicial prudence required before taking cognizance/investigation |
| R.K. Garg v. Union of India | Cognizance can be taken on information ‘otherwise’ than complaint/police report |
| Jaya Chandra v. State | Magistrate can order investigation before cognizance but distinct steps |
| S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India | Cognizance requires prima facie material or reasonable grounds |
| Bhajan Singh v. State of Punjab | Magistrate cannot take cognizance in non-cognizable offenses except special cases |
Additional Points:
Cognizance can be taken suo motu by Magistrates if information is available.
Magistrate exercises discretion and acts as a filter to prevent frivolous cases.
After cognizance, summons or warrant can be issued.
Cognizance is different from investigation; investigation precedes trial initiation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments