Meaning & Scope
“Cognizance” under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), refers to the action taken by a magistrate or court upon receiving information about the commission of a cognizable offense. It is the stage at which the legal machinery is set in motion to begin the process of inquiry and trial.
Meaning of Cognizance
- Cognizance is the judicial or legal notice taken by a magistrate or court of law when a complaint or report of a cognizable offense is presented before it.
- It signifies the initiation of criminal proceedings, and it is at this point that the court or magistrate becomes aware of the alleged offense and decides to proceed with the case.
Scope of Cognizance
- Cognizable Offenses: Cognizance is taken for cognizable offenses. Cognizable offenses are more severe crimes for which the police can register an FIR (First Information Report) without the need for a court’s permission. Examples of cognizable offenses include murder, robbery, rape, and others that are serious in nature.
- Non-Cognizable Offenses: For non-cognizable offenses, the police cannot take cognizance without the court’s orders. These are generally less severe offenses. The court’s involvement is required for the initiation of proceedings in such cases.
- Complaints and Reports: Cognizance can be taken based on different sources of information, including:
- Police Report (FIR): The police may file a report (FIR) and submit it to the magistrate or court, and cognizance is taken based on this report.
- Complaint by Private Individuals: A private individual, also known as a complainant, may file a complaint with the court, and cognizance may be taken based on this complaint.
- Suo Motu (on its own motion): In certain cases, the court can take cognizance of an offense on its own motion, without a formal complaint or report.
- Magistrate’s Discretion: The magistrate has the discretion to decide whether or not to take cognizance of an offense. The magistrate assesses the material placed before them and decides whether there is enough evidence to proceed with the case.
- Limitations: Cognizance does not mean that the accused is automatically declared guilty. It is the initial step in the legal process. Subsequent stages involve investigation, charges, trial, and the determination of guilt or innocence.
Cognizance of offences by Magistrates
The cognizance of offences by magistrates in India can be taken in several ways, and the initiation of criminal proceedings is determined by the nature of the case and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
On a Police Report (Section 190)
- A magistrate can take cognizance of an offense upon receipt of a police report, which typically includes the First Information Report (FIR). This is a common way for criminal proceedings to be initiated.
- Section 190 of the CrPC: This section empowers magistrates to take cognizance of offenses based on police reports.
- Case Law: The case of Suresh Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. (2009) discusses the circumstances under which a magistrate can take cognizance based on a police report.
On a Private Complaint (Section 190 and 200)
- A magistrate can take cognizance of an offense based on a private complaint filed by an individual. The complaint should be made before the magistrate and fulfill certain requirements.
- Section 190 and Section 200 of the CrPC: These sections deal with taking cognizance based on a private complaint.
- Case Law: The case of Priyanka Srivastava & Another v. State of U.P. & Others (2015) discusses the procedure for taking cognizance based on a private complaint.
Suo Motu Cognizance (Section 190 and 200)
- In some cases, a magistrate can take suo motu cognizance of an offense, meaning they initiate proceedings on their own without a formal complaint or police report.
- Section 190 and Section 200 of the CrPC: These sections provide for the magistrate’s authority to take suo motu cognizance.
- Case Law: The case of Court on its Own Motion v. State of Karnataka (2001) illustrates the circumstances in which a magistrate can take suo motu cognizance.
On Complainant Appearing Before the Court (Section 200 and Section 202)
- If a complainant appears before the magistrate, and the magistrate thinks further inquiry or investigation is required, they can either proceed to take cognizance or order an inquiry/investigation by the police.
- Section 200 and Section 202 of the CrPC: These sections relate to the procedure for the magistrate when a complainant appears before the court.
- Case law: The case of Satish Mehra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2005) deals with the magistrate’s role when a complainant appears before the court.
| Section Number | Title of Section | Explanation | Case Law |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 191 | Transfer on Apprehension | Magistrate’s power to transfer cases if it appears that an offense was committed within their jurisdiction. | State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh (1979 AIR 321) |
| Section 192 | Making over of cases | Magistrate’s discretion to make over cases to another magistrate having jurisdiction to inquire or try the case. | A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988 AIR 1531) |
| Section 193 | Cognizance by Magistrates | Empowers Executive Magistrates to take cognizance of certain offenses and commit the case to a Court of Session. | State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha (1980 AIR 1532) |
| Section 194 | Transferred cases | Procedures for transferred cases, emphasizing that the original court must furnish relevant documents to the court to which the case is transferred. | R. Narayanaswamy v. R. Bala (2007 (1) Crimes 353) |
| Section 195 | Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants | Conditions for filing complaints for offenses related to contempt of lawful authority. | Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2001 AIR 768) |
| Section 196 | Prosecution for offenses against the State | Requirement of prior sanction for prosecuting public servants for offenses against the State. | S.N. Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam (2011 AIR 204) |
| Section 197 | Prosecution of judges and public servants | Protection from prosecution for judges and public servants when acts are done in the course of official duties. | Nand Lal Wasudeo Dongre v. State of M.P. (2004 AIR 1431) |
| Section 198 | Prosecution for offenses against marriage | Procedures for complaints relating to offenses against marriage, providing rights to the aggrieved person. | P. Sreekumar v. A. Thomas (2005 (1) KLT 412) |
| Section 199 | Prosecution for defamation | Procedure for filing complaints in cases of defamation, allowing aggrieved persons to initiate legal action. | Arun Jaitley v. Arvind Kejriwal (2017 SCC Online Del 9131) |
Section 191 – Transfer on Apprehension:
- Explanation: This section empowers a magistrate to transfer cases when it appears that an offense was committed within their jurisdiction.
- Nature and Scope: It has an administrative nature, allowing magistrates to ensure cases are tried in the appropriate jurisdiction based on the location of the offense.
Section 192 – Making over of cases:
- Explanation: This section allows a magistrate to make over cases to another magistrate having jurisdiction to inquire or try the case.
- Nature and Scope: It is discretionary in nature, providing flexibility to magistrates to assign cases to other magistrates as needed.
Section 193 – Cognizance by Magistrates:
- Explanation: Section 193 allows Executive Magistrates to take cognizance of certain offenses and commit the case to a Court of Session for trial.
- Nature and Scope: It has an empowering nature, granting Executive Magistrates the authority to initiate proceedings for specified offenses.
Section 194 – Transferred cases:
- Explanation: Section 194 deals with the procedure for transferred cases, emphasizing that the original court must furnish relevant documents to the court to which the case is transferred.
- Nature and Scope: It is procedural, ensuring a smooth transfer of cases and the preservation of records and documents for the receiving court.
Section 195 – Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants:
- Explanation: Section 195 outlines conditions for filing complaints for offenses related to contempt of lawful authority.
- Nature and Scope: It is protective in nature, safeguarding public servants from frivolous or malicious complaints by requiring a certain level of scrutiny.
Section 196 – Prosecution for offenses against the State:
- Explanation: Section 196 mandates prior sanction for prosecuting public servants for offenses against the State.
- Nature and Scope: It is protective, providing protection to public servants while ensuring that cases against them are initiated with the necessary approval.
Section 197 – Prosecution of judges and public servants:
- Explanation: Section 197 protects judges and public servants from prosecution when acts are done in the course of official duties.
- Nature and Scope: It is protective, ensuring that judges and public servants are not unduly harassed for actions taken in their official capacity.
Section 198 – Prosecution for offenses against marriage:
- Explanation: Section 198 outlines procedures for complaints relating to offenses against marriage and provides rights to the aggrieved person.
- Nature and Scope: It is protective, safeguarding the rights of the aggrieved party in cases related to offenses against marriage.
Section 199 – Prosecution for defamation:
- Explanation: Section 199 establishes the procedure for filing complaints in cases of defamation, allowing aggrieved persons to initiate legal action.
- Nature and Scope: It is empowering, granting the aggrieved party the right to seek redress for defamation.
