Know The Law | Why Police Require Magistrate's Approval To Investigate Non-Cognizable Offences? Supreme Court Explains

The Bench of Justices B. V. Nagarathna and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh explained that when it comes to non-cognizable offences, our criminal justice system has put certain safeguards in place to keep the coercive power of police in check.

“On the other hand, when it relates to non-serious offences which are generally categorized as non-cognizable offences, the law is more circumspect in letting the full force of the criminal justice system operate. When it is related to non-cognizable offence there are certain safeguards put in place so that the invasive, intrusive, and coercive power of the police is not immediately brought into operation, as enabled under Section 156 of the CrPC. In such a situation any complaint alleging commission of non-serious offence(s) or non-cognizable offence(s) made before the police, has to be vetted by a legally trained person in the presence of a Judicial Magistrate before the police can initiate the investigation.,'' the Bench explained.

Thus, unless police receive a green signal from the magistrate, it cannot commence an investigation on its own. These safeguards ensure a fine balance between citizen's liberty and imperative power of the state.

The present case revolved around the FIR filed against the appellant under Section 186 (Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions) and Section 353 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty). Though the appellant had approached the High Court for the quashing, the plea was rejected on the basis of FIR as well as witnesses' statement given under Section 161 of the code. Thus, the present appeal.

The Bench pointed out that for non-cognizable offences, pertaining to officials who are obstructed from discharging their official duties, there is an additional safeguard. The complaint must be filed by a public servant before the court/magistrate.

“Further, when such noncognizable offence(s) pertaining to officials who are obstructed from discharging their official duties, there is the additional safeguard before the Magistrate which permits the investigating authority to investigate. It must be preceded by a complaint filed by a public servant before the court/Magistrate.”

In this regard, the Court observed that in the present case, no such complaint was filed by the public servant. It is important to note that Section 195 of the code (Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants) mandates that cognizance for offence under Section 186 IPC can be taken only on a complaint filed by a public servant before the Magistrate.

Adverting to the submissions of the State that a complaint was filed by the District Probation Officer to the City Magistrate, the Court categorically held that the complaint must be addressed to the judicial magistrate. The Bench stated that a complaint within the meaning and scope of the Criminal Procedure Code is a complaint filed before a Judicial Magistrate and not an Executive Magistrate.

Stressing that a written complaint by the public servant before the Trial Court is a sine qua non, the Apex Court marked the cognizance taken by the Trial Court under Section 186 of IPC as “illegal”.

In so far as Section 353 is concerned, the Court explained that for an act to fall under this Section, it must involve either assault or criminal force. However, in the present FIR, there was no mention of both of the said requirements. Mere obstruction was not enough as Section 353 is of an aggravated nature as compared to Section 186.

Against this backdrop, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant.

Also read: Complaint Within Meaning Of CrPC Is One Filed Before Judicial Magistrate & Not Executive Magistrate : Supreme Court

When FIR Omits Crucial Facts & They Are Added Later Through S.161 CrPC Statements, It Indicates Afterthought : Supreme Court

Case name: B. N. JOHN v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR., SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 2184 OF 2024

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Click here to read the judgment