Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

“155. Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases:

(1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer, the informant to the Magistrate (2) 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 (3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case (4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are noncognizable”

i) Keshav Lal Thakur .vs. State of Bihar,wherein it is held as follows:

“We need not go into the question whether in the facts of the instant case the above view of the High Court is proper or not for the impugned proceeding has got to be quashed as neither the police was entitled to investigate into the offence in question nor the Chief Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance upon the report submitted on completion of such investigation. On the own showing of the police, the offence underSection 31of the Act is non cognizable and therefore the police could not have registered a case for such an offence under Section 154(2) Dr. P.C. of course, the police is entitled to investigate into a non- cognizable offence pursuant to an order of a competent Magistrate under Section 155(2) Dr. P.C. but, admittedly, no such order was passed in the instant case. That necessarily means, that neither the police could investigate into the offence in question nor submit a report on which the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis question of taking cognizance could have arisen. While on this point, it may be mentioned that in view of the proviso to Section 2(d) Dr. P.C., which defines 'complaint', the police is entitled to submit, after investigation, a report a relating to a non-cognizable offence in which case such a report is to be treated as a 'complaint' of the police officer concerned, but that explanation will not be available to the prosecution here as that related to a case where the police initiates investigation into a cognizable offence - unlike the present one - but ultimately finds that only a non-cognizable offence has been made out.

Cryptic orders such as “permitted” would not satisfy the provisions of the code.

(c) The learned Magistrate shall not pass an order on an application by the Police for investigating non~cognizable offences without the informant being referred to him/her.

15. On careful reading of the said judgment it is clear that any investigation done in respect of non cognizable offence without following the procedure under Section 155 of Cr.P.C would render the final report illegal.

Explanation: A report made by a police officer ia case which discloses, after investigation , the commission of a non cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant”

19. But in this case the police registered the First Information Report only for cognizable offence and Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., is on different context and section 2(d) of Cr.P.C will not come into play in this case, because as per Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. after investigation any report https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis relating to the cognizable offence in which code such a report is to be treated as a complaint of police officer concerned. But in this case the averments of complaint discloses the non cognizable offence. Thereby the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent cannot be accepted.