Exploring Police Duties in Non-Cognizable Offences Investigation

When someone reports a minor dispute at a police station – say, a verbal altercation with a neighbour or a petty scuffle – the officer at the desk doesn’t simply launch an investigation. There’s a specific legal process that kicks in, and it’s quite different from how serious crimes are handled. This distinction goes to the heart of how India’s criminal justice system balances effective law enforcement with the protection of individual liberty. The key to understanding it lies in the category of offences known as non-cognizable offences – and the carefully defined role that police are permitted to play in investigating them.

What is a non-cognizable offence? 🔗

Under Section 2(o) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 – which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 – a non-cognizable offence is defined as one in which a police officer has no authority to arrest without a warrant and cannot initiate an investigation without prior permission from a Magistrate. These are generally less serious offences: minor assaults, defamation, public nuisance, cheating of smaller value, and similar disputes that do not pose an immediate threat to public order.

This stands in direct contrast to cognizable offences – serious crimes like murder, robbery, or rape – where the police can register a First Information Report (FIR), arrest the accused without a warrant, and begin investigation immediately. In non-cognizable cases, the law deliberately places a judicial checkpoint between the complaint and the investigation. This is not bureaucratic red tape; it is a constitutional safeguard.

The legal framework: Section 174 of the BNSS 🔗

Section 174 of the BNSS is the central provision governing how police must handle non-cognizable complaints. It lays down a clear, step-by-step procedure that every officer in charge of a police station is legally bound to follow. Understanding this section is essential for anyone studying criminal law or working in the criminal justice system.

Step 1: Recording the complaint 🔗

When a person approaches a police station to report a non-cognizable offence, the officer in charge must record the substance of the information in a designated book, maintained in the format prescribed by the State Government. Crucially, this is not an FIR. In non-cognizable cases, there is no First Information Report in the classical sense. What gets recorded is called a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) – a formal acknowledgment that a complaint has been received, but not a trigger for immediate investigation.

Step 2: Referring the complainant to the Magistrate 🔗

After recording the complaint, the officer must refer the informant to the Magistrate. The police do not decide whether an investigation should proceed – that authority rests with the Magistrate. This referral is not optional. Section 174(1) of the BNSS mandates that the officer direct the complainant toward the Magistrate’s court, which then becomes the proper forum for seeking investigation.

Step 3: Fortnightly diary reports to the Magistrate 🔗

The police station must also send a daily diary report of all non-cognizable cases to the Magistrate every fortnight. This ongoing reporting obligation ensures judicial oversight of all such complaints in the area – not just the ones where complainants actively approach the court. It allows the Magistrate to stay informed about patterns of disputes and potentially take proactive action.

The absolute bar on investigation without Magistrate’s order 🔗

Section 174(2) of the BNSS states in unambiguous terms: no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. This is a clear statutory bar – not a guideline, but a prohibition. Any investigation commenced without this order would be procedurally invalid and could violate the fundamental rights of the accused.

This is why courts have consistently enforced this requirement. The Karnataka High Court, while examining a petition under Section 174 BNSS in 2025, reiterated that the provision creates an express embargo on police investigation in non-cognizable matters unless the jurisdictional Magistrate passes a written order granting permission. The court further directed the State Government to frame rules prescribing the format of the record book for non-cognizable cases – a formality that had not yet been completed even after BNSS came into force on July 1, 2024.

Powers of police after receiving the Magistrate’s order 🔗

Once the Magistrate grants permission to investigate, the picture changes – but only partially. Under Section 174(3) of the BNSS, the investigating officer can exercise the same powers as an officer handling a cognizable case – with one critical exception: the power to arrest without a warrant does not apply. Even with Magistrate approval, the police cannot take the accused into custody without first obtaining an arrest warrant from the court. This ensures that individual liberty is not compromised even when an investigation is underway.

In practical terms, this means the officer can collect evidence, examine witnesses, inspect the scene of the alleged offence, and prepare a report – all of which mirror cognizable case procedures. But an arrest requires a separate, judicially-issued warrant throughout the process.

What happens if the Magistrate lacks jurisdiction? 🔗

An important procedural protection exists under Section 506(b) of the BNSS: if a Magistrate who is not properly empowered erroneously orders an investigation under Section 174 while acting in good faith, the consequent proceedings are not automatically rendered invalid on that ground alone. Courts have treated this as a mere procedural irregularity that does not vitiate the trial or any resulting conviction, provided the order was made in good faith. This safeguard prevents technicalities from derailing the course of justice.

Rights of the accused at the pre-investigation stage 🔗

There is another nuance worth noting. When the police apply to the Magistrate for permission to investigate a non-cognizable offence, the accused person has no right to appear or intervene in those proceedings at that stage. As the Madras High Court held in V.V. Perumal v. State, an accused person does not formally become a party to judicial proceedings until the Magistrate issues process against them. The Magistrate, similarly, should not permit the accused to intervene at the permission-seeking stage. This separation of stages is a deliberate design choice that protects both the integrity of the complaint and the procedural rights of the accused later in the process.

When cognizable and non-cognizable offences overlap 🔗

Real-life complaints often involve facts that could attract both cognizable and non-cognizable charges. For instance, a dispute that begins as a verbal altercation (non-cognizable) might also involve an assault causing hurt (which can be cognizable). In such cases, Section 174(4) of the BNSS provides a clear rule: where a case involves two or more offences and at least one is cognizable, the entire case is treated as a cognizable case. This means the police can proceed with investigation without waiting for a Magistrate’s order. The rationale is practical – requiring a Magistrate’s permission for part of a case while independently investigating another part would create confusion and delay.

Why this procedural distinction matters constitutionally 🔗

The requirement of a Magistrate’s order before any investigation in non-cognizable offences is not merely procedural – it has deep constitutional roots. Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India guarantee the right to personal liberty and protection against arbitrary arrest. Allowing the police to investigate and potentially arrest individuals in minor disputes without any judicial check would expose citizens to harassment and abuse of state power. The BNSS framework ensures that the decision to put the machinery of criminal investigation into motion – even in lesser offences – is made by an independent judicial officer, not the police alone.

It is also worth noting the contrast with the previous CrPC framework. Section 155 of the CrPC served a similar function to the current Section 174 of the BNSS, requiring a Magistrate’s order before police could investigate non-cognizable offences. The BNSS retains this core principle while introducing refinements, including the formalization of the NCR record-keeping system and the fortnightly reporting obligation to the Magistrate.

How a complainant should approach a non-cognizable offence 🔗

For a complainant, the practical implication is straightforward. If you report a non-cognizable offence at a police station, the officer will record your complaint and direct you to the Magistrate’s court. You will then need to file a complaint before the Magistrate, who will examine the matter and decide whether to order a police investigation. If the Magistrate is satisfied that investigation is warranted, they will pass a written order enabling the police to proceed. Alternatively, under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, a complainant can also petition the Magistrate directly to direct a police investigation – a route commonly used when the police fail to act even in cognizable matters.

Understanding this pathway matters. Many complainants expect the police to act immediately on any complaint, not realising that for non-cognizable offences, judicial authorisation is a prerequisite – not a formality that can be bypassed.

What do you think? Given that India’s criminal justice system requires a Magistrate’s order before police can investigate non-cognizable offences, does this additional layer of judicial oversight adequately protect citizens from police overreach – or does it place too heavy a burden on complainants who may not have easy access to a Magistrate’s court? And with the BNSS now in force since July 2024 but some states yet to frame the rules required under Section 174, how might this gap in implementation affect the rights of both complainants and the accused at the ground level?

References

1. https://www.apnilaw.com/bare-act/bnss/section-174-bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhitabnss-information-as-to-non-cognizable-cases-and-investigation-of-such-cases/
2. https://thelegalquotient.com/criminal-laws/bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita/powers-of-police-with-respect-to-non-cognizable-offences-s-174-bnss/7352/
3. https://marriagesolution.in/bnss_section_/section-174-bnss/
4. https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/karnataka-high-court/karnataka-high-court-orders-framing-of-rules-section-174-bnss-karnatala-government-297568
5. https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-second-sanhita-2023
6. https://www.lawctopus.com/clatalogue/clat-pg/cognizable-and-non-cognizable-offences-under-crpc/
7. https://www.myrights.in/2026/02/fir-guide-bnss-vs-crpc-india.html