CRPC – II

Cognizance by Magistrate

• When an offence is committed, a citizen has two options; he may either lodge an
FIR before the Police Officer if the offence is a cognizable one, or he may lodge a
complaint before a competent Judicial Magistrate irrespective of whether the
offence is cognizable or non-cognizable.
• Any Magistrate of the first class and the duly empowered second class Magistrate
may take cognizance of any offence for further proceedings.
• Sections 190 to 199 of CrPC describes the methods by which various criminal courts
are authorised to take cognizance of offences. Sections 195 to 199 put some limitation
on filing complaint or taking cognizance, in regard to certain private offences.
• Taking cognizance in regard to an offence by a competent Magistrate is not defined
or described in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• The term “taking cognizance” actually means "become aware of", but in reference to
a Court or a Judge, it means "to take notice of judicially".
• In practice ‘taking cognizance’ means taking notice of an offence for initiation of
proceedings under Section 190 of Cr.P.C.
• Cognizance’ refers to the point when the court first takes judicial notice of an offence
by not only applying its mind to the contents of the complaint/police report, but
also proceeding further as provided further in Chapter XIV of the Cr.P.C.

Cognizance by Magistrate
• Sec 190 (1) of CrPC states that any magistrate of the first class and any magistrate
of the second class specially empowered in this behalf, may take cognizance of any
offenses-
a) Upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such an offense.
b) Upon a police report of such facts.
c) Upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own
knowledge, that such an offense has been committed.

• The term complaint has been defined in sec 2(d) as meaning: ‘any allegation made
orally or in writing to a magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this code
that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not
include a police report.’
• It also explain that a report made by a police officer in a case which disclose, after
investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offense shall be deemed to be a
complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be
the complainant.
 Ajit Kumar Palit vs. State of W.B (AIR 1963 SC 765)
• In this case, the court stated that, what means taking cognizance has not been
defined in the Code.
• The word ‘cognizance’ has no esoteric or mystic significance in Criminal Law or
procedure.
• It merely means ‘become aware of’ and when used with reference to a court or
judge. ‘to take notice judicially’.

• Pitambar Buhan vs. State of Orissa (1992 CrLJ 645)

• In this case, the court stated taking cognizance includes intention of initiating a
judicial proceeding against an offender in respect of an offense or taking steps to see
whether there is basis for initiating a judicial proceeding.

 Chinnaswami vs. Kuppuswami (AIR 1955 Mad 534)

• Here the court held that ordinarily, a private citizen intending to initiate criminal
proceedings in respect of an offense has two courses open to him.
• He may lodge an FIR before the police if the offense is cognizable one, or he may
lodge a complaint before a competent judicial magistrate irrespective of whether the
offense is cognizable or non-cognizable.
• The object of the Code is to ensure the freedom and safety of the subject in that it
gives him the right to come to court if he considers that a wrong has been done to
him or to the Republic and be a check upon police vagaries.

• Examination of Complainant:
• Sec 200 states that a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall
examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the
substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the
complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate.
• The object of such examination is to ascertain whether there is prima facie case
against the person accused of the offence, and to prevent the issue of process in case
of false complaint.
 Brahmanand Goyal vs. N.C. Chakraborty [1974 CrLJ 1079 (Cal)]
• In the case, the court held that the provision of sec 200 of CrPC are not a mere
formality, but have been intended by the legislature to be given effect for the
protection of accused persons against unwarranted complaints.

 P.S. Ramaswamy Nadar vs. R. Vishwanath[1957 CrLJ 673 (Mad)]

• In the case, the court held that sec 200 requires the Magistrate to examine the
complainant and the witness present.
• This duty being imperative, the Magistrate should ask the complainant whether any
witnesses are present. If there is no such witnesses present, the Magistrate should also
record this fact.

• Examination of Complainant:
• Sec 200 further states that when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need
not examine the complainant and the witnesses—
• (b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate
under section 192.
• The object behind this exception is that, only one examination of the complainant and
of the witnesses will be considered adequate.

• Procedure by Magistrate not competent to take cognizance of the case.—

• Sec 201 states that if the complaint is made to a Magistrate who is not competent to
take cognizance of the offence, he shall,—
• (a) if the complaint is in writing, return it for presentation to the proper Court with an
endorsement to that effect;
• (b) if the complaint is not in writing, direct the complainant to the proper Court.

• Postponement of issue of process.—

• Sec 202 states that any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which
he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section
192, may, if he thinks fit, and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a
place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction, postpone the issue of
process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an
investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit,
for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding.
• The object of sec 202 is to enable the Magistrate to form an opinion as to whether the
process should be issued or not, and to remove from his mind hesitation that he may
have felt upon the mere perusal of the complaint and the consideration of the
complainant’s evidence on oath.

 Chandra Deo Singh vs. Prakash Chndra Bose [(1963) 2 CrLJ 397]
• In this case the court stated that what the Magistrate has to see is whether there is
evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint, and not whether the
evidence is sufficient to warrant a conviction.

• Dismissal of Complaint—
• Sec 203 states that if, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the
complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any)
under section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground
for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly
record his reasons for so doing.
• Sec 203 requires that in every case the Magistrate dismisses the complaint under this
section, he shall briefly record his reasons for doing so.
• Without reasons, it would be almost impossible to determine whether the Magistrate
while dismissing the complaint applied his mind to the facts, or whether the discretion
was properly exercised or not.
• Pramatha Nath Talukdar vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar [(1962) 1 CrLJ 770]
• In this case, the court stated that the Magistrate must apply his minds to these
materials and then form his judgment as to whether or not there is sufficient ground
for proceeding.