Cognizance

Ramabatar Agarwalla v. State, 1983 Crlj 122 (Ori) .

Dayal Trading Co. v. State of Orissa, 1990 Crlj 715 (Ori) .
Manjeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 (1) Crimes 90 (Raj) .

• Taking cognizance of an offence and issue of

process are judicial functions and require a
judicious and not a routine approach.
• Taking cognizance of an offence is a judicial
function and not a judicial harassment.
• Taking cognizance means nothing more than
taking Judicial notice of the offence.
Ram v State of Rajasthan. 2013 CrLJ Raj
• The scope and ambit of taking cognizance is limited only
to seeing whether prima facie the offence is made out i.e.
whether the ingredients of the offence exist or not. The
evidence which may be in favour of the accused, and the
facts which may be marshalled out as part of his defence
during trial, cannot be considered at the stage of taking
cognizance. Thus, where the Court considered the
contradiction between the statements of witnesses, it was
held that it obviously overstepped its jurisdiction. The
plea of alibi taken by the accused could not have been
considered at the stage of taking cognizance.
• Manojbhai Bhagwandas Shah v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 2 Guj LR 1052

Where the Magistrate without specifying the offence, which the accused has
committed, summons the accused, the order is illegal, as the Magistrate is
required to take cognizance of the offence and not merely of offender.

• S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon Internation Ltd. AIR

2008 SC 1213
The expression ‘cognizance’ merely means ‘become aware of’ and when used
with reference to a Court or a Judge, it connotes ‘to take notice of
judicially’. It indicates the point when a Court or a Magistrate takes judicial
notice of an offence with a view to initiate proceedings in respect of such
offence said to have been committed by someone.
 Bhagat Singh v. Surinder Kumar, (2004) 11
SCC 622
• Cognizance” indicates the point when a
Magistrate or a Judge takes judicial notice of
an offence. It is entirely different thing from
initiation of proceedings; rather it is the
condition to the initiation of the proceedings
by the Magistrate or the Judge. Cognizance is
taken of cases and not of persons.
Shashi Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 2014 Crlj
80 (Kar)
• The act of taking cognizance is the judicial application of mind
by the Magistrate for the purpose of proceeding further in the
case. The Magistrate taking cognizance and ordering issuance
of summons, even on police report, is required to apply his
judicial mind to the contents of the charge-sheet and form an
opinion, whether a prima facie case was made out for all or
any of the offences alleged. Thus, where the Magistrate,
without finding out as to under which law the alleged offence
has been committed, ordered issuance of summons to the
accused, it was held that the order was not in accordance with
law and the proceeding was liable to be quashed.
 Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2004
SC 1734
• At this stage, the Magistrate has only to decide whether sufficient
ground exists or not for further proceeding in the matter.
Notwithstanding the opinion of the police, a Magistrate is
empowered to take cognizance if the material on record makes out
a case for the said purpose. The investigation is the exclusive
domain of the police. The taking of cognizance of the offence is an
area exclusively within the domain of Magistrate. At this stage, the
Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for
proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for
conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the
conviction, can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage
of inquiry. At the stage of issuing the process to the accused, the
Magistrate is not required to record reasons.
Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR
2013 SC 633
• The Magistrate, in exercise of its powers under S. 190
Crpc, can refuse to take cognizance, if the material on
record warrants so. The Magistrate must, in such a case,
be satisfied that the complaint, case diary, or statements
of the witnesses recorded under Ss. 161 and 164 CrPC, of
any, do not make out any offence. At this stage, the
Magistrate performs a judicial function. However, he
cannot appreciate the evidence on record and reach to a
conclusion as to which evidence is acceptable or can be
relied upon. Thus, at this stage appreciation of evidence is
impermissible
• Where a Magistrate chooses to take cognizance he can adopt
any of the following alternatives:—
• He can peruse(examine) the complaint and if satisfied that
there are sufficient grounds for proceeding he can straight way
issue process to the accused but before he does so he must
comply with the requirements of Section 200 and record the
evidence of the complainant or his witnesses.
• The Magistrate can postpone the issue of process and direct an
enquiry by himself.
• The Magistrate can postpone the issue of process and direct an
enquiry by any other person or an investigation by the police.
 State of Bihar v. Sakaldip Singh, AIR 1966 Pat 473 .
Frank Dalton Larkins v. State, 1985 Crlj 377 (Del) .
D. Lakshminarayana v. Narayana, AIR 1976 SC
Sarup Ram v. Haryana, 1977 Crlj 1420 (P&H) .
Gajadhar Singh v. Mahesh Chandra, AIR 1981 NOC 206 (All) .
Jagdish Sahai Mathur v. State (Delhi Admn), 1991 Crlj 1069
• A Magistrate even after accepting the final report can still take cognizance of the offence
upon a complaint or protest petition on same or similar allegation of fact.
• When a complaint is filed and sent to police under Section 156(3) for investigation and
then a protest is filed, the Magistrate, after accepting the final report of police under S.
173 and discharging the accused persons, has the power to deal with the protest petition.
• Even after accepting final report cognizance of an offence may be taken upon a complaint
or protest petition on the same or similar allegations of fact.
• Where IO has filed final report, the complainant has not filed protest petition, it is not
open to the Magistrate to straightway examine the complainant and his witnesses and
pass order for summoning the accused.
• A protest petition must satisfy the ingredients of a complaint before Magistrate can take
cognizance under S. 190(1)(a). A mere sentence in the protest petition that the accused
has committed heinous offences would not be a complaint of facts, which constitute an
offence, and as such Magistrate would not take cognizance on such a protest petition.

• Where a protest petition is filed, the procedure prescribed for trial of a complaint case has
to be followed.
• Revision

An order of taking cognizance is not an interlocutory order but one which decides a
serious question as to the right of the person to be put on trial. Against such an order,
a revision according to law is competent. On the basis of the principle laid down in this
decision, a view can be taken that an order of taking cognizance is in the nature of a
final order.

• Petition under S. 482.—

Where the Magistrate has not taken cognizance of certain offence stated in complaint,
the complainant has not challenged the order of the Magistrate not taking cognizance,
the remedy open to the complainant is to file fresh complaint. The High Court on
petition under S. 482 cannot direct the Magistrate to take cognizance of that offence.
• Section 191 Read Yourself

• Section 192 Read Yourself

 Nisar v. State of U.P., 1995 Crlj 2118
Kishun Singh v. State of Bihar, 1993 SCC (Cri) 470
Babu Lal v. State of M.P., 2006 Crlj (NOC) 4 (MP) .
Sri Niwas Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2007 CrLJ 4498 (4499) (Pat) .
Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC 3018
Abdul Majid v. State (Delhi Admn.), 1978 Crlj 239 (Del).

Cognizance by Sessions Court. Section 193

A Court of Session can take cognizance of an offence against other persons than
those shown as accused in the case committed.
• Once the Magistrate commits the case to the Court of Session, the bar of S.
193 is lifted, and the Court of Session has complete and unfettered jurisdiction
of the Court of original jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence, which
would include the summoning of person or persons whose complicity in the
commission of the crime can prima facie be gathered from the material
available on record,even though the trial in the case has not commenced.
• The moment, the Magistrate commits the case to the Court of Sessions under
S. 209, Crpc be becomes functus officio for that case and hence, he cannot
again take cognizance of the same offence which would include summoning of
any other persons. After commitment, S. 193, Crpc comes to play its role.
 Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC 3018
Abdul Majid v. State (Delhi Admn.), 1978 Crlj 239 (Del).

In has been held that the Sessions Judge is entitled to issue summons under
S. 193 Crpc upon the case being committed to him by the Magistrate. Thus,
a five-Judge Constitution Bench has held that the Sessions Judge has
jurisdiction on committal of case to it, to take cognizance of the offences of
persons not named as offenders but whose complicity in the case would be
evident from the materials available on record. Hence, even without
recording evidence, the Sessions Judge may summon those persons shown
in column 2 of the police report. The plea that the Sessions Judge has no
alternative but to wait till the stage of S. 319 of the Code is reached was
held to be not acceptable.

There is an express prohibition contained in this section that no Court of

Session shall take cognizance of any offence unless the case has been
committed to it and hence this section is not controlled by S. 319.
• Section 195

• Section 196

• Section 197

• Section 198

• Section 199