Cognizable and Non-Cognizable Offences

In January 2025, the Supreme Court issued a significant ruling that outlined the scope and procedures for police investigations into both serious and minor crimes. The ruling specifically addressed the distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable offences, underscoring the safeguards that must be in place when dealing with non-cognizable crimes. This decision stemmed from a case involving allegations against an appellant under certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Understanding Cognizable and Non-Cognizable Offences

The Supreme Court’s ruling clarified the difference between cognizable and non-cognizable offences. In the case of cognizable offences, police have the authority to initiate investigations without prior approval. However, for non-cognizable offences, the police are required to obtain permission from a magistrate before proceeding with any investigation. This distinction plays a critical role in ensuring that individual rights are respected while maintaining the state’s power to enforce the law.

Legal Protections for Non-Cognizable Offences

The Court highlighted the built-in safeguards for non-cognizable offences, designed to prevent arbitrary use of police powers. These measures are in place to protect the liberties of citizens, ensuring that investigations into non-cognizable offences are conducted only after being reviewed by a legally trained individual and approved by a Judicial Magistrate.

Role of Public Servants in Non-Cognizable Offences

In cases involving non-cognizable offences committed by public servants, the Court emphasized that a complaint must be filed by the affected public servant. This requirement serves as an additional check against potential misuse of authority, ensuring that police investigations cannot proceed without the proper formal complaint.

Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code

The Court referred to Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which dictates that certain offences can only be addressed through a complaint from a public servant. The ruling reaffirmed that such complaints must be made to a Judicial Magistrate, not an Executive Magistrate, to ensure that the legal process is properly followed.

Impact of the Ruling

This ruling has far-reaching implications for the handling of non-cognizable offences. It emphasizes the importance of judicial oversight, particularly when public servants are involved, and reinforces the necessity of following proper legal procedures before police can act in these cases.

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings

In the specific case before the Court, the Bench decided to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellant. The Court found that the legal requirements were not met, particularly the failure to file a complaint from the public servant involved. This omission rendered the police investigation unlawful, demonstrating the importance of adhering to established legal protocols in criminal investigations.