Investigation In Cognizable Vs. Non-Cognizable Offences
🔍 Definitions
Cognizable Offence: An offence in which a police officer can register an FIR and start an investigation without prior approval of the Magistrate. These are generally more serious crimes like murder, rape, theft, etc. The police have the authority to arrest without warrant and start investigation on their own.
Non-Cognizable Offence: An offence where the police cannot register an FIR or start investigation without prior approval of a Magistrate. These are less serious offences, such as public nuisance, defamation, simple hurt, etc.
Legal Framework
Section 2(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973: Defines cognizable offences.
Section 2(l) of the CrPC: Defines non-cognizable offences.
Section 156(1) CrPC: Police can investigate cognizable offences without magistrate's permission.
Section 155(2) CrPC: Police cannot investigate non-cognizable offences without magistrate's order.
Section 190 CrPC: Magistrate’s power to take cognizance of offences.
Investigation in Cognizable Offences
Police must register FIR on receiving information about such an offence.
Police can start investigation without prior approval.
Police can arrest suspects without warrant.
Police must file charge sheet after investigation.
Police report is submitted to Magistrate for further proceedings.
Investigation in Non-Cognizable Offences
Police cannot register FIR or investigate without magistrate’s permission.
Complainant must approach Magistrate.
Magistrate may direct police to investigate.
Investigation is limited and requires magistrate’s supervision.
Usually offences are bailable and less serious.
📚 Key Case Laws on Investigation in Cognizable vs Non-Cognizable Offences
1. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335
Facts: The case dealt with abuse of police power in registering FIRs and launching investigations.
Held:
Supreme Court laid down guidelines to prevent misuse of FIRs and investigations in cognizable offences.
FIR should not be registered mechanically; police must satisfy themselves that a cognizable offence is prima facie made out.
Police must refrain from investigating in frivolous or vexatious complaints.
Significance: Set important parameters for investigation initiation in cognizable offences to avoid abuse.
2. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) 3 SCR 769
Facts: Delineation between cognizable and non-cognizable offences was discussed in context of sedition.
Held:
Supreme Court clarified that serious offences that involve public peace disturbances are cognizable.
Investigation and police action in such offences can proceed without magistrate’s permission.
Significance: Clarified the classification and powers related to serious offences.
3. Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 12 SCC 375
Facts: Issue whether police can investigate non-cognizable offence without magistrate’s order.
Held:
Supreme Court reiterated that police cannot investigate non-cognizable offences without magistrate’s sanction.
Any investigation without magistrate’s permission is illegal and can be quashed.
Significance: Affirmed procedural requirement in non-cognizable offence investigations.
4. Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP (2014) 2 SCC 1
Facts: Supreme Court laid down guidelines regarding mandatory registration of FIR in cognizable offences.
Held:
If information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, police must register FIR without exception.
Police cannot refuse registration, delay, or ignore complaints.
Investigations must be prompt and lawful.
Significance: Emphasized police duty to act promptly in cognizable offences and distinguished from non-cognizable offence procedures.
5. State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 7 SCC 172
Facts: The issue of police powers in investigation, arrest and trial in cognizable offences.
Held:
Police have the right to investigate, arrest without warrant in cognizable offences.
Such powers are restricted in non-cognizable offences unless magistrate sanctions investigation.
The police investigation should be fair and not arbitrary.
Significance: Affirmed police powers in cognizable offence investigation vis-à-vis restrictions in non-cognizable offences.
6. Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1996) 7 SCC 450
Facts: Investigation in non-cognizable offences related to corruption.
Held:
The Court held that in certain non-cognizable offences related to public servants, police investigation can proceed under statutory provisions.
The normal rules for non-cognizable offences can be overridden by special laws.
Significance: Special statutes can provide exceptions to the general CrPC rules on investigation.
7. State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003) 4 SCC 601
Facts: Investigation of medical negligence case (non-cognizable offence).
Held:
Court held that in non-cognizable offences, police cannot start investigation without magistrate’s direction.
Proper procedure must be followed to protect accused from frivolous harassment.
Significance: Reinforced procedural safeguards in non-cognizable offences.
⚖️ Summary Table: Investigation Powers in Cognizable vs. Non-Cognizable Offences
| Aspect | Cognizable Offence | Non-Cognizable Offence |
|---|---|---|
| Police power to register FIR | Yes | No, unless magistrate permits |
| Power to investigate | Yes, without magistrate's approval | Only with magistrate's sanction |
| Power to arrest without warrant | Yes | Generally no |
| Nature of offence | Serious | Less serious |
| Trial initiated by | Police investigation | Magistrate’s order |
✅ Conclusion
Investigation in cognizable offences is immediate and police-led, ensuring swift action.
Investigation in non-cognizable offences is limited and controlled by magistrates to prevent unnecessary police harassment.
Courts have clearly defined the scope of police powers and magistrate's supervisory role to balance effective law enforcement and protection of individual rights.
The principles laid down in key cases like Bhajan Lal, Lalita Kumari, and Bhagwan Singh guide the procedural correctness in investigations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments