Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
No FIR can be lodged regarding a non-cognizable offence and prosecution is permissible only by means of a complaint before a Magistrate or a competent court ["Jaya Jain VS State Of U. P. - Allahabad"]
Cognizance of offences is generally barred if the FIR pertains solely to non-cognizable offences, unless certain conditions are met, such as investigation being initiated with prior magistrate approval or the presence of a cognizable offence emerging during investigation.
Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate ["Mohd. Rashid Khan VS State Of U. P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. - Allahabad"]
Investigation into non-cognizable offences without prior magistrate approval is illegal, and any subsequent cognizance taken based on such investigation is questionable.
The police could not have taken cognizance of offence under Section 494 IPC which is non-cognizable ["Amal Babu, S/O Babu P. M. VS State Of Kerala - Kerala"]
When an offence is initially non-cognizable, but during investigation a cognizable offence is discovered, courts may take cognizance only if proper procedures (like prior magistrate approval) are followed; otherwise, such cognizance is invalid.
The police registered FIR and investigated a non-cognizable offence without magistrate permission, which is illegal ["Kamaljeet Singh VS State NCT of Delhi - Delhi"]
In conclusion, lodging an FIR for a non-cognizable offence does not permit the court to take cognizance directly; it must be based on a complaint or follow statutory procedures, and any cognizance taken without proper procedure is liable to be challenged or quashed.
In the realm of criminal law in India, the distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable offences is fundamental. A common query arises: if a First Information Report (FIR) is lodged for a non-cognizable offence, can cognizance be taken or not? This question often perplexes litigants, lawyers, and even law enforcement. Understanding this hinges on provisions like Sections 154, 155, and 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). This post delves into the legal nuances, supported by judicial precedents, to provide clarity.
Note: This is general information based on legal principles and case law. It is not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Cognizable offences allow police to arrest without a warrant and investigate without prior permission (e.g., murder under IPC Section 302). Non-cognizable offences, like simple hurt (IPC Section 323), require a court order for investigation. Section 155(2) CrPC explicitly states no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without a Magistrate's order. B. N. John VS State Of U. P. - 2025 1 Supreme 1T. T. Antony VS State Of Kerala - 2001 5 Supreme 131Japani Sahoo VS Chandra Sekhar Mohanty - 2007 5 Supreme 604
FIR registration is mandatory for cognizable offences under Section 154 CrPC, but for non-cognizable ones, police typically record it as a Non-Cognizable (NC) report and refer the complainant to court. B. N. John VS State Of U. P. - 2025 1 Supreme 1
Even if an FIR is lodged for a non-cognizable offence, it does not automatically empower investigation or cognizance. FIR registration in cognizable offences is mandatory; in non-cognizable offences, investigation without prior Magistrate order is illegal. B. N. John VS State Of U. P. - 2025 1 Supreme 1T. T. Antony VS State Of Kerala - 2001 5 Supreme 131Japani Sahoo VS Chandra Sekhar Mohanty - 2007 5 Supreme 604
If police investigate without such an order, the probe is unlawful. A police report or charge sheet from such an investigation is deemed invalid for cognizance. Even if a police report is filed for a non-cognizable offence, it is deemed a complaint only if investigation was initiated without proper Magistrate authorization, which is unlawful. Umashankar Yadav VS State of Uttar Pradesh, Through Chief Secretary - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 795T. T. Antony VS State Of Kerala - 2001 5 Supreme 131
In one case, the court noted: It is noticed that the FIR was registered without obtaining orders from the Magistrate and included only non-cognizable offences. Therefore the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance. Haneefa, S/o. Abdullakutty VS State Of Kerala - 2022 Supreme(Ker) 914
Main Legal Finding: Cognizance cannot be legally taken based solely on an FIR for a non-cognizable offence unless the investigation followed a prior Magistrate's order under Section 155(2) CrPC. B. N. John VS State Of U. P. - 2025 1 Supreme 1T. T. Antony VS State Of Kerala - 2001 5 Supreme 131
Cognizance involves the Magistrate applying judicial mind to lawful material. Taking cognizance based solely on such a police report or FIR, obtained without following the statutory procedure, is not permissible under law. B. N. John VS State Of U. P. - 2025 1 Supreme 1T. T. Antony VS State Of Kerala - 2001 5 Supreme 131
The Supreme Court emphasizes: The law emphasizes that the foundation of cognizance is the application of judicial mind to the material before the Magistrate, which must be obtained lawfully. Keshav Lal Thakur VS State Of Bihar - 1996 7 Supreme 608T. T. Antony VS State Of Kerala - 2001 5 Supreme 131
Courts have quashed proceedings where this was flouted. For instance, in cases under IPC Section 188 (non-cognizable without complaint), FIRs without public servant's written complaint were void ab initio. Kali Lombi S/O Shri Lomka Lombi VS State of AP through the PP - 2024 Supreme(Gau) 1759 The court held: The registration of FIR under Section 188 IPC without a written complaint from the concerned public servant is impermissible and renders the proceedings void ab initio. Kali Lombi S/O Shri Lomka Lombi VS State of AP through the PP - 2024 Supreme(Gau) 1759
Keshav Lal Thakur (supra): Investigation in non-cognizable offences without Magistrate order is illegal; proceedings liable to be quashed. T. T. Antony VS State Of Kerala - 2001 5 Supreme 131
Dr. Lata & Anr. (supra): Cognizance order distinct from registration/investigation; illegal probe cannot found valid cognizance. T. T. Antony VS State Of Kerala - 2001 5 Supreme 131
In another ruling: As could be seen from Section 460 of Cr.P.C. these defects of non-taking permission before investigating a non-cognizable offence is also not curable. Ashish Kumar Tiwari @ Rahul VS State Of Uttar Pradesh Thru. A. C. S/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. - 2024 Supreme(All) 969 Even accepting a charge sheet post-illegal investigation does not imply permission. Ashish Kumar Tiwari @ Rahul VS State Of Uttar Pradesh Thru. A. C. S/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. - 2024 Supreme(All) 969
Related to IPC 188: Cognizance of offences under Section 188 IPC can only be taken on a written complaint from the concerned public servant. Ashish Kumar Tiwari @ Rahul VS State Of Uttar Pradesh Thru. A. C. S/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. - 2024 Supreme(All) 969Kali Lombi S/O Shri Lomka Lombi VS State of AP through the PP - 2024 Supreme(Gau) 1759
These cases underscore that illegal FIRs or investigations vitiate the process.
Narrow exceptions exist:
If a cognizable offence emerges during a lawful non-cognizable probe, police may proceed under Section 155(4) CrPC, but initial illegality persists. Umashankar Yadav VS State of Uttar Pradesh, Through Chief Secretary - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 795
Courts may overlook minor irregularities if no prejudice is caused, but this is rare. The Court may take cognizance if it is satisfied that the investigation was conducted with proper authority or if the illegality did not cause prejudice; however, this is a narrow exception. B. N. John VS State Of U. P. - 2025 1 Supreme 1
In mixed cases (cognizable + non-cognizable), police can investigate both, but pure non-cognizable requires order. One judgment clarified: Thus, it is clear that the police can investigate a non-cognizable offence along with cognizable offence. Kailash Narayan VS State of M. P.
However, for offences like Section 174A IPC (cognizable but barred by Section 195), FIR by IO isn't a 'complaint'. However, in the present case the F.I.R. has been lodged by the Investigating Officer and even charge sheet of the same cannot be termed as 'complaint' as per Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. Sumit VS State of U. P. - 2024 Supreme(All) 49
For Complainants: Approach Magistrate directly for non-cognizable cases via private complaint under Section 200 CrPC.
For Police: Obtain Magistrate order before investigating; treat unauthorized probes as invalid.
For Courts: Scrutinize basis of cognizance; quash if founded on illegal FIR/report. Any FIR in respect of non-cognizable offences initiated without Magistrate approval should be treated as invalid, and cognizance should not be taken solely on such reports. T. T. Antony VS State Of Kerala - 2001 5 Supreme 131
Authorities must adhere: Authorities must ensure that investigation into non-cognizable offences is initiated only after obtaining the requisite Magistrate order under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. T. T. Antony VS State Of Kerala - 2001 5 Supreme 131
In delays or refusals, use Section 154(3) or 156(3) CrPC, or Section 482 High Court petitions. Rajendra Singh Pawar VS State of M. P. - 2020 Supreme(MP) 1124
In summary, an FIR for a non-cognizable offence does not permit cognizance without prior Magistrate authorization for investigation. Breaches render proceedings vulnerable to quashing. Supreme Court and High Courts consistently uphold this to prevent abuse. Umashankar Yadav VS State of Uttar Pradesh, Through Chief Secretary - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 795T. T. Antony VS State Of Kerala - 2001 5 Supreme 131
Key Takeaways:- No automatic cognizance on non-cognizable FIR. B. N. John VS State Of U. P. - 2025 1 Supreme 1- Section 155(2) CrPC mandatory. T. T. Antony VS State Of Kerala - 2001 5 Supreme 131- Illegal investigations incurable in most cases. Ashish Kumar Tiwari @ Rahul VS State Of Uttar Pradesh Thru. A. C. S/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. - 2024 Supreme(All) 969- Seek Magistrate order or file private complaint.
Stay informed on CrPC procedures to navigate criminal justice effectively. For tailored advice, consult a legal expert.
References:1. B. N. John VS State Of U. P. - 2025 1 Supreme 1: Investigation and cognizance in non-cognizable offences.2. T. T. Antony VS State Of Kerala - 2001 5 Supreme 131: Legality of FIR and cognizance.3. Japani Sahoo VS Chandra Sekhar Mohanty - 2007 5 Supreme 604: No cognizance without lawful investigation.4. Additional sources: Sumit VS State of U. P. - 2024 Supreme(All) 49, Ashish Kumar Tiwari @ Rahul VS State Of Uttar Pradesh Thru. A. C. S/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. - 2024 Supreme(All) 969, Kali Lombi S/O Shri Lomka Lombi VS State of AP through the PP - 2024 Supreme(Gau) 1759, Haneefa, S/o. Abdullakutty VS State Of Kerala - 2022 Supreme(Ker) 914, Kailash Narayan VS State of M. P.
#CrPC #CriminalLaw #FIR
However, in the present case the F.I.R. has been lodged by the Investigating Officer and even charge sheet of the same cannot be termed as "complaint" as per Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. because the same provides only for non-cognizable offences whereas Section 174-A I.P.C. is a cognizable offence. ... As there is a bar u/s 22 of Mines and Minerals Act which provides that cognizance of the offence under Mines and Minerals Act will not be....
It is contended that the offence punishable under Sections 41 and 42/77 of the Act of 1953 are non-cognizable offence and as per the provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no police officer shall investigate into non-cognizable case without order of Magistrate ... It is argued that the FIR in the present case, could not have been registered because there was no order from the Magistrate having power to try suc....
It is also submitted that if it is taken that the offence indicated in the FIR as also in the Charge Sheet i.e. ... As there is a bar u/s 22 of Mines and Minerals Act which provides that cognizance of the offence under Mines and Minerals Act will not be taken by the Court except upon a complaint by an authorized person. ... (i) Indisputably, the complaint has not been filed in terms of Section 195 Cr.P.C. by the concerned officer, therefore, the tri....
As could be seen from Section 460 of Cr.P.C. these defects of non- taking permission before investigating a non- cognizable offence is also not curable. ... Though the charge sheet is filed after due investigation without prior permission of the Court and that the Magistrate has accepted the charge sheet and taken the cognizance, it does not mean to show permission is granted by the Magistrate to investigate such non- cogn....
the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are ... As could be seen from Section 460 of Cr.P.C. these defects of non-taking permission before investigating a non....
(xi) that bare reading of the contents of the FIR would not disclose either any cognizable or non-cognizable offences even if the entire contents of the FIR are accepted on its face value. ... (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police offi....
It is noticed that the FIR was registered without obtaining orders from the Magistrate and included only non-cognizable offences. Therefore the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance. 21. ... (ii) Can cognizance be taken when the final report pursuant to an investigation into a non-cognizable offence commenced without orders from the Magistrate reveals a cognizable #....
The Apex Court held that Babubhai Madhavlal Patel’s case (supra) dealt with offences of non-cognizable nature dealt under Chapter XX of the Cr.P.C. and the said ratio could not apply when offence under Section 498A of IPC (Cognizable offence) and under Section 494 of IPC (non-cognizable offence) were ... by the aggrieved person, the police could not have taken cognizance of #HL_S....
cognizance under S.190 has or has not been taken away by any of the clauses (a) to (c) of S.195(1). ... As such, since cognizance of offence under S.188 of the IPC can be taken on the basis of complaint in writing filed by the public servant concerned within the meaning of S.2(d) of the Code, offence under S.188 of the IPC being cognizable offence is not also saved by Explanation appended to S.2(d) of ... Such a su....
As such, since cognizance of offence under Section 188 of the IPC can be taken on the basis of complaint in writing filed by the public servant concerned within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C., offence under Section 188 of the IPC being cognizable offence is not also saved by Explanation appended ... An FIR or a Final Report will not become void ab initio insofar as offences other than Section 172 to 188 of IPC and a Fina....
In other words the FIR for non cognizable offence alone(without addition of any cognizable offence) cannot be registered at police station without order of the magistrate.' Thus, the ingredients essential to constitute an offence under section 341 of IPC are conspicuously missing, thus, invocation of offence under section 341 of IPC in FIR per se is not warranted by law as no offence under this section is made out. Section 323 of IPC being a non- cognizable offence, therefore, as per the mandate of section 154 of Cr.P.C. the FIR can be lodged at the police station for an offence wh....
In case of delay after giving reasons preliminary inquiry shall be completed within 42 days and outcome shall be communicated to the complainant. In such circumstances, he has relied upon the judgment passed by the Principal Seat, at Jabalpur in the case of Rajendra Singh Pawar Vs. State of M.P. and Ors. passed in W.P. No. 18878/2020 vide order dated 24.12.2020, wherein, certain guidelines to be followed by the Police and held that Police Officer shall enter complaint in General Diary as per M.P. Police Regulation, 634 and give number of entry to complaints. If preliminary inquiry is require....
5. Chapter XII-section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure fixes duty on concerned police officer to examine the complaint and form opinion whether cognizable offence is made out or not. Otherwise, he can close the complaint if no offence is made out or enter the information as non cognizable offence under section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If cognizable offence is made out then he is duty bound to register First Information Report.
Thus, it is clear that the police can investigate a non-cognizable offence along with cognizable offence, and can file charge sheet even for an offence of which the cognizance can be taken by the Court only on the complaint of an aggrieved person or an competent authority.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
