Non-Cognizable Offence Registration
📋 What is a Non-Cognizable Offence?
Non-cognizable offence is an offence in which the police cannot register an FIR (First Information Report) or start an investigation without prior approval from a magistrate.
These offences are generally less serious in nature (contrasted with cognizable offences, which involve serious crimes like murder, rape, theft, etc.).
Examples: public nuisance, defamation, minor hurt, simple cheating under a certain threshold, etc.
Police powers are limited: They cannot arrest or investigate without magistrate permission.
The classification of offences into cognizable or non-cognizable is provided under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), Section 2(c) and the First Schedule of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
🛠️ Legal Framework:
Section 155 CrPC: Police can record information but cannot investigate without magistrate’s orders.
Section 156 CrPC: Police can register FIR for cognizable offences but must seek magistrate’s permission for non-cognizable offences.
Section 190 CrPC: Magistrate’s powers to take cognizance on complaint.
⚖️ Important Case Laws on Non-Cognizable Offence Registration
1. Brij Lal vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1954 SC 431)
Facts:
A complaint was filed involving a non-cognizable offence.
Police refused to register an FIR or take action without magistrate’s order.
Issue:
Whether police can refuse to register FIR in case of a non-cognizable offence.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that police cannot register FIR in non-cognizable offences without magistrate's permission.
However, police must send the complaint to the magistrate for necessary orders.
It emphasized that the police have a duty to forward the complaint to the magistrate even if the offence is non-cognizable.
Significance:
Police cannot initiate investigation independently in non-cognizable cases.
Registration of non-cognizable offence FIR is only after magistrate’s sanction.
2. Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP (2014) 2 SCC 1
Facts:
The Supreme Court examined police responsibility in registering FIRs.
Issue:
Whether police can refuse to register an FIR in cognizable and non-cognizable cases.
Judgment:
It was held that police must register FIR for cognizable offences immediately.
For non-cognizable offences, police cannot start investigation without magistrate’s approval.
It was clarified that police can record information about non-cognizable offences but cannot proceed with investigation without magistrate orders.
Significance:
Strengthened the procedural framework for handling non-cognizable offences.
Reaffirmed police limitations and magistrate’s supervisory role.
3. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335)
Facts:
The police registered an FIR for a non-cognizable offence without magistrate permission and initiated investigation.
Issue:
Legality of police investigation in non-cognizable offences without magistrate approval.
Judgment:
Supreme Court declared such investigation as illegal.
Reiterated that police must seek magistrate approval before investigation in non-cognizable offences.
Significance:
Protected citizens from arbitrary police action in less serious offences.
Clarified procedural safeguards under CrPC.
4. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 645
Facts:
Complaint involved a non-cognizable offence.
Police refused to register FIR or investigate.
Issue:
Whether police duty extends to forwarding complaints about non-cognizable offences to magistrate.
Judgment:
Court held police cannot ignore complaints.
Even if an offence is non-cognizable, police must refer the complaint to magistrate for necessary action.
Significance:
Police cannot deny complaints just because the offence is non-cognizable.
Ensures complainants’ grievances reach the magistrate.
5. Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (2017) 7 SCC 536
Facts:
The question arose about FIR registration and investigation in non-cognizable offences in the context of online/offline complaints.
Issue:
Whether online complaints alleging non-cognizable offences require magistrate approval before investigation.
Judgment:
Court reaffirmed that irrespective of complaint mode (online/offline), the police must comply with CrPC provisions.
No investigation or FIR registration for non-cognizable offences without magistrate sanction.
Significance:
Modernized application of CrPC provisions for digital era complaints.
Emphasized procedural discipline.
📝 Summary:
| Case | Key Principle |
|---|---|
| Brij Lal v. State of UP | Police cannot register FIR/investigate non-cognizable offences without magistrate permission; must forward complaint. |
| Lalita Kumari v. UP | FIR mandatory for cognizable; no investigation for non-cognizable without magistrate order. |
| State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal | Investigation in non-cognizable offences without magistrate order is illegal. |
| K.K. Verma v. Union of India | Police must forward non-cognizable offence complaints to magistrate; cannot ignore them. |
| Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal | Same rules apply for online/offline complaints; no investigation without magistrate permission. |
🔍 Practical Implications:
Police Action: Police can only take preliminary note for non-cognizable offences and forward it to magistrate.
Complainant’s Remedy: If police do not forward the complaint, complainant can approach magistrate directly or file writ.
Magistrate Role: Magistrate evaluates and decides whether investigation is warranted.
Protection: This protects citizens from arbitrary police action in minor offences but ensures complaints get judicial scrutiny.
RELATED Blog
0 comments