Introduction

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) meticulously delineates the powers and procedures for police investigation into criminal offences. A fundamental distinction in this framework is between cognizable and non-cognizable offences, which dictates the initiation and conduct of police action. While information regarding a cognizable offence mandates the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 154 CrPC,¹ information concerning a non-cognizable offence is dealt with under Section 155 CrPC, leading to the recording of a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR). This article provides a comprehensive legal analysis of the concept of NCRs in India, the procedural requirements, the limited powers of the police, the crucial role of the Magistrate, and the legal implications of procedural deviations, drawing upon statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements.

The Concept of Non-Cognizable Offences and Reports

A "non-cognizable offence" is defined under Section 2(l) of the CrPC as an offence for which a police officer has no authority to arrest without a warrant. Correspondingly, a "non-cognizable case" means a case in which a police officer has no such authority. These offences are generally considered less serious in nature compared to cognizable offences, where police can arrest without a warrant as per Section 2(c) CrPC. The First Schedule of the CrPC classifies various offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and other laws as cognizable or non-cognizable.

When information is provided to an officer in charge of a police station about the commission of a non-cognizable offence within the station's limits, Section 155(1) CrPC mandates the officer to enter or cause to be entered the substance of such information in a book maintained for this purpose (often referred to as the Non-Cognizable Offences Register or General Diary).² Crucially, the officer must then refer the informant to the Magistrate.³ This entry constitutes the Non-Cognizable Report (NCR). An NCR, though not an FIR, is an official record of the complaint and can have implications, for instance, in administrative verifications or passport issuance processes.⁴ In Dharam Pal And Others v. State Of Uttar Pradesh, an incident was initially registered as an NCR under Section 323 IPC, which was later converted to a case under Section 304 IPC upon the victim's death, illustrating the practical recording of an NCR.⁵

The Bar on Police Investigation and the Indispensable Role of the Magistrate

The most significant aspect of Section 155 CrPC is sub-section (2), which unequivocally states: "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 provision acts as a statutory bar on the police's power to investigate non-cognizable offences unilaterally.⁶ The legislative intent is to prevent police from embarking on investigations into less serious offences without judicial oversight, thereby safeguarding citizens from potential harassment or frivolous investigations.⁷

The Supreme Court in Keshav Lal Thakur v. State Of Bihar held that police could not have registered a case for a non-cognizable offence under Section 154 CrPC and, importantly, could not investigate such an offence without an order from a competent Magistrate under Section 155(2) CrPC.⁸ This principle has been consistently reiterated by various High Courts. For instance, the Delhi High Court in Nisha Priya Bhatia Petitioner v. State Nct Of Delhi & Ors. affirmed that police can investigate a non-cognizable offence only pursuant to a Magistrate's order.⁹ Similarly, the Kerala High Court in PRASANTH K.S. v. STATE OF KERALA, relying on its earlier decision in Haneefa v. State of Kerala, emphasized that Section 155(2) CrPC prohibits not only the investigation but even the commencement of an investigation without the Magistrate's order.¹⁰

The order of the Magistrate under Section 155(2) CrPC is not a mere administrative formality. The Karnataka High Court in CHANNAKESHAW S/O RUDRAPPA AVARADI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA and SRI KRISHNAPPA M T v. STATE OF KARNATAKA has deprecated the practice of Magistrates merely endorsing "permitted" on police requisitions without due application of judicial mind.¹¹ Such an order must reflect that the Magistrate has considered the facts and circumstances before granting permission to investigate.

Once a police officer receives such an order from the Magistrate, Section 155(3) CrPC empowers the officer to exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case, with one critical exception: the power to arrest without a warrant.¹²

Legal Status of Investigation and Report in Non-Cognizable Cases

Consequences of Unauthorized Investigation

An investigation conducted by the police into a non-cognizable offence without a valid order from a Magistrate under Section 155(2) CrPC is illegal and ultra vires. The Madras High Court as early as 1926 in The Public Prosecutor v. Ratnavelu Chetty held that a police officer is incompetent to investigate a non-cognizable case without such an order, and such an investigation is no better than one by a private individual.¹³

The Supreme Court in Keshav Lal Thakur further clarified that if an investigation is conducted in contravention of Section 155(2), the police cannot submit a report on which cognizance could be taken by the Magistrate as a "police report" under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC.¹⁴ Proceedings initiated on the basis of such an illegal investigation are liable to be quashed.¹⁵ The Supreme Court's guidelines in State Of Haryana And Others v. Bhajan Lal And Others for quashing FIRs include proposition (4): "Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S. 155(2) of the Code."¹⁶ Although this refers to an FIR, the principle extends to any police investigation into a purely non-cognizable matter initiated without magisterial sanction.

Nature of the Report After Investigation

If the police investigate a non-cognizable offence after obtaining a valid order under Section 155(2) CrPC, they can submit a report to the Magistrate. The question then arises whether this report is a "police report" under Section 173(2) CrPC (which forms the basis for cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC) or a "complaint" under Section 2(d) CrPC (on which cognizance is taken under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC).

The Explanation to Section 2(d) CrPC states: "A report made by a police officer in a 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." The Supreme Court in Keshav Lal Thakur clarified that this Explanation applies when police initiate an investigation into a cognizable offence but ultimately find that only a non-cognizable offence has been made out.¹⁷ It does not directly apply to a situation where the investigation was initiated ab initio for a non-cognizable offence, even if with Magisterial permission.

However, judicial opinion has leaned towards treating a report filed after a duly authorized investigation into a non-cognizable offence as a complaint. The Allahabad High Court in Jai Prakash v. State held that a report for prosecution based on the result of an investigation into a non-cognizable offence (even if assumed to be validly ordered, though the case dealt with an unordered one) should be treated as merely a complaint of facts constituting the offence.¹⁸ The Karnataka High Court in Moin Basha Kurnooli v. The State Of Karnataka observed that if the police report is only with reference to a non-cognizable offence (investigated with permission), it can be treated as a complaint under Section 2(d) CrPC, and the Magistrate would then proceed under Chapter XV of the CrPC (Sections 200-203).¹⁹ The Andhra Pradesh High Court in K.V Ramaniah And Another Petitioners v. Special Public Prosecutor noted that a police report under Section 190 CrPC can be in respect of a non-cognizable case investigated under Section 155 CrPC.²⁰

This distinction is crucial because the procedure following a "police report" (Chapter XVI CrPC, trial as a state case) differs significantly from that following a "complaint" (Chapter XV CrPC, examination of complainant and witnesses on oath before issuing process). As seen in Dhanveer And Others Petitioner v. State Of U.P & Another, an argument was raised that even after a Magistrate-ordered investigation into non-cognizable offences, the case should proceed as a complaint case, not a state case.²¹

Specific Scenarios and Judicial Interpretations

Cases Involving Both Cognizable and Non-Cognizable Offences

Section 155(4) CrPC provides a clear rule for mixed cases: "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 non-cognizable." In such situations, the police can investigate all offences, including the non-cognizable ones, without needing a specific order under Section 155(2) CrPC for the non-cognizable parts.²² The investigation proceeds as if it were for a cognizable offence.

Conversion of NCR to FIR

An NCR may be converted into an FIR if, during the initial stages or upon further information, it is revealed that a cognizable offence has also been committed. This was seen in Dharam Pal where an NCR under Section 323 IPC was converted into a case under Section 304 IPC.²³ Similarly, in Harswarup And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. And Another, an NCR under Sections 323 and 504 IPC was later converted into a cognizable case (Case Crime No.) by adding Section 325 IPC.²⁴ Once a cognizable offence is disclosed, the police derive their power to investigate from Section 156 CrPC.

Magistrate's Power to Order Investigation

It is important to distinguish the Magistrate's power under Section 155(2) CrPC (to permit investigation into a non-cognizable offence) from the power under Section 156(3) CrPC. Section 156(3) empowers a Magistrate to order an investigation into a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court in Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar And Others clarified that an order under Section 156(3) can include a direction to register an FIR.²⁵ This is distinct from the permission granted under Section 155(2) for non-cognizable offences, which does not automatically translate into an FIR registration but rather an authorization to investigate the non-cognizable matter.

Conclusion

The legal framework surrounding Non-Cognizable Reports in India, primarily governed by Section 155 CrPC, establishes a clear procedural pathway that emphasizes judicial oversight before police can investigate such offences. The recording of an NCR is an initial step, referring the informant to the Magistrate, and any subsequent investigation hinges upon a specific order from the Magistrate, which must be based on an application of judicial mind.

Judicial precedents have consistently upheld the mandatory nature of Section 155(2) CrPC. Investigations conducted in violation of this provision are deemed illegal, and reports emanating from such unauthorized investigations cannot form the basis of cognizance as a "police report," though they might, in certain circumstances, be treated as "complaints." The distinction between the procedures for cognizable offences (leading to FIRs and broader police powers) and non-cognizable offences (requiring NCRs and magisterial permission for investigation) is fundamental to the Indian criminal justice system, aiming to balance the need for investigation with the protection of individual liberties against unwarranted police action. Strict adherence to these statutory safeguards is paramount for ensuring procedural fairness and upholding the rule of law.