Cognizance

Posted on by user

Cognizance

Introduction

“Cognizance” is a short word that marks a long procedural threshold in criminal justice: the moment a judicial forum accepts that sufficient material exists to treat an allegation as a matter for criminal adjudication. In Indian practice, the decision to take cognizance transforms private grievance or police information into formal court proceedings. For practitioners, understanding when and how courts take cognizance — and the collateral rights and defects that follow — is indispensable to shaping criminal strategy, securing remedies when the police decline to act, and contesting mala fide or frivolous prosecutions.

Core Legal Framework

Primary statutory provisions and their practical import:

  • CrPC, Section 190 — Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.
  • Text (key portion): “Subject to the provisions of section 196, any Magistrate of the first class may take cognizance of any offence—
    (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;
    (b) upon a police report of such facts;
    (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge that such offence has been committed.”
  • CrPC, Section 154 — Information in cognizable cases; registration of FIR (police cognizance and its onward investigation).
  • CrPC, Section 156(3) — Power of Magistrate to direct investigation by police upon a complaint.
  • CrPC, Section 173 — Report of police officer on completion of investigation (police report/chargesheet or closure report) — material on which magistrate may take cognizance under s.190(b).
  • CrPC, Section 200 — Examination of complainant on oath and other procedural steps for complaints.
  • CrPC, Section 202 — Further inquiry before taking cognizance (in complaints).
  • CrPC, Section 204 — Issue of process (summons/warrant) post-cognizance.
  • CrPC, Section 197 and statutory sanction provisions (e.g., under Prevention of Corruption Act) — bar on taking cognizance without prior sanction where applicable.
  • High Court’s inherent jurisdiction (Section 482 CrPC) — supervisory control to quash proceedings that are mala fide, vexatious, or without jurisdiction even after cognizance.

Two judicially important propositions bear emphasis:
1. The threshold for a magistrate to take cognizance is prima facie material indicating commission of an offence (not proof beyond reasonable doubt).
2. Certain statutory prerequisites (like sanction) and jurisdictional limits can prevent cognizance; their absence renders consequent process vulnerable to challenge.

Practical Application and Nuances

How cognizance unfolds in daily practice, with concrete examples and procedural bearings.

  1. Modes of initiation and practitioner choices
  2. Complaint-driven cognizance (s.190(1)(a)):
    • A private complainant may file a complaint under s.190. The magistrate first examines the complainant (s.200) and may conduct further inquiry (s.202) before taking cognizance and issuing process (s.204).
    • Practical use: When police refuse to register FIR (s.154), an aggrieved party can present a private complaint to the magistrate to secure cognizance and obtain directions for investigation under s.156(3) or to seek summons against accused if prima facie material exists.
  3. Police report-driven cognizance (s.190(1)(b) + s.173):
    • After investigation, police submit a charge-sheet or final report under s.173. Magistrate takes cognizance on that report and may issue process, dismiss, or further examine the report’s veracity.
    • Practical use: Where police produce a closure report (no-case), aggrieved complainant can move under s.156(3) for magisterial direction to investigate or file private complaint to obtain cognizance despite police closure.

  4. Information or magistrate’s own knowledge (s.190(1)(c)):

    • The court can take cognizance suo moto if information before it discloses an offence (e.g., newspaper reports, court records). This is rarer but strategically important in public interest matters.

  5. Threshold and material required

  6. Standard: Prima facie material showing a cognizable offence. The magistrate is not weighing evidence beyond that threshold; the enquiry is limited to whether a reasonable basis exists to issue process.
  7. What to annex to a complaint to improve chances of cognizance: contemporaneous documents, corroborative records (medical reports, communications, bank statements), identification of witnesses with particulars, sworn affidavit of complainant, and copies of prior police reports (if any).

  8. Hearsay: Excess reliance on inadmissible hearsay weakens the complaint; attach original/source material wherever possible.

  9. Immediate consequences after cognizance

  10. If cognizance is taken, magistrate can issue summons or warrant under s.204, commit to trial if necessary, or direct investigation.

  11. For accused, cognizance means the formal machinery of criminal procedure begins — bail applications, discovery/inspection rights, evidence-listing, charge framing.

  12. Interplay with sanctions and jurisdiction

  13. If law requires prior sanction (s.197 or special statutes), lack of sanction invalidates cognizance — process is vulnerable to quashing. Practically, always check whether accused is a public servant or statute prescribes sanction before proceeding.

  14. Use of Magistrate’s further inquiry (s.202)

  15. Practitioners often seek s.202 orders when facts need preliminary validation to avoid submitting a flimsy complaint or to persuade the magistrate to dismiss. Conversely, respondents rarely face s.202 unless the magistrate invokes it suo moto.

  16. Examples

  17. Example A (Private complaint where FIR not registered): Complainant files a private complaint with contemporaneous medical evidence + WhatsApp messages annexed. Magistrate conducts s.200 inquiry, directs s.156(3) investigation because police refused to register FIR. Result: investigation followed by s.173 report; magistrate may later take cognizance on that report.
  18. Example B (CHARGESHEET taken cognizance): After chargesheet under s.173, magistrate looks at material and issues summons under s.204; accused applies for anticipatory bail — cognizance has already been taken on the chargesheet.
  19. Example C (Lack of sanction): Complaint against public servant filed without statutory sanction — accused files quash petition under s.482; unless sanction is produced, magistrate’s cognizance and subsequent process will likely be set aside.

Landmark Judgments

  • Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1
  • Principle: Upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence, police are ordinarily bound to register an FIR under s.154 CrPC. The Court laid down that refusal to register FIR is impermissible save in narrowly defined situations where a preliminary inquiry is warranted. Practical implication: where police decline registration, the complainant’s route is either filing a complaint to the magistrate (to obtain directions under s.156(3)) or seeking writ relief; magistrates and courts now approach cognizance with the expectation that cognizable information will trigger registration/investigation.
  • State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335
  • Principle: Supreme Court codified categories where High Courts may quash FIR/complaint under their inherent powers (s.482) — e.g., allegations that do not constitute an offence, allegations barred by law, mala fide or motivated complaints. Practical implication: Taking cognizance is not an absolute blockade; where cognizance has been taken but the case is malicious or without substance, counsel must consider early quash applications.

(These two cases together frame modern practice: police duties to act on cognizable information; and courts’ power to police abuse of process even post-cognizance.)

Strategic Considerations for Practitioners

How to leverage (or neutralize) cognizance in litigation strategy.

For complainant/petitioner:
– Document and annex the best primary material when filing complaint — contemporaneous records beat retrospective narration.
– If police refuse to register FIR, promptly move to magistrate for cognizance or seek s.156(3) direction. Don’t delay — delay erodes evidence and judicial sympathy.
– Where sanction is required, secure the sanction before filing a complaint or press for production of sanction in the early proceedings.

For accused/respondent:
– Immediately scrutinize jurisdiction and statutory pre-conditions (sanction, limitation in special statutes) and raise them (either before the magistrate or by a quash petition under s.482).
– Challenge cognizance early on grounds of lack of prima facie material, mala fide prosecution, or that the complaint is self-contradictory. Once process issues and trial progresses, it becomes harder to arrest proceedings.
– Where charges are based solely on police report with obvious defects, move for further particulars, seek disclosure and explore early discharge applications where appropriate.

Common pitfalls to avoid
– For complainants: filing general, narrative-heavy complaints with no documents — magistrate will dismiss or order s.202 inquiry that delays the matter.
– For accused: assuming that once cognizance is taken, quashing is impossible. Several categories (Bhajan Lal) remain open for s.482 relief; don’t wait to move until mid-trial.
– For both: ignoring sanction and jurisdictional rules. Courts will not take cognizance in the absence of statutorily mandated prerequisites.

Tactical tips
– Draft complaints to trigger specific offences with corresponding sections; attach document index and identify witnesses with succinct statements.
– Use s.156(3) as a practical remedy when police are dilatory — magistrates commonly issue such directions to obtain investigation material necessary for/create cogent report for cognizance.
– In complex white-collar or public interest matters, combine public interest petitioning and media-mapped documentation to create a cogent paper trail for judicial cognizance.

Conclusion

Cognizance is the procedural gateway to criminal adjudication. Knowing the statutory modes — complaint, police report, or court’s own motion — the threshold test of prima facie material, the interplay with police duties (s.154 and Lalita Kumari), and the limits imposed by sanction and jurisdiction, equips practitioners to start, defend, or neutralize criminal proceedings effectively. Practically, success at the cognizance stage depends on disciplined pleadings (primary documents, witness particulars), early attention to statutory prerequisites, and prompt, strategic use of magistrate directions (s.156(3)), s.202 inquiries, or High Court supervisory jurisdiction under s.482. Mastery of this phase often decides whether a matter becomes a protracted criminal trial or is filtered out at inception.