Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases
Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases. 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 The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(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 by rules prescribe in this behalf, and,—
(i) refer the informant to the Magistrate;
(ii) forward the daily diary report of all such cases fortnightly 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 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 non-cognizable.
Section 174, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 155 Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of suchcases Text carried over almost unchanged 91%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs Director, Cbi
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 155, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 6-A Of The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, Which Requires Prior Approval Of The Central Government For Conducting Inquiry Or Investigation Into Offences Under The Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988 Against Central Government Employees Of Joint Secretary Level And Above, Is Invalid And Violative Of Article 14 Of The Constitution Because: (1) It Creates An Impermissible Classification Based Solely On Status Or Position Of Public Servant; (2) This Classification Has No Rational Nexus To The Legitimate Object Of Preventing Corruption As Enacted In The Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988; (3) Every Public Servant Against Whom There Are Allegations Of Corruption Must Be Treated Equally And Similarly Under Law Regardless Of Their Position; (4) The Provision Violates The Rule Of Law, Which Is A Facet Of Article 14, By Preventing Independent, Unhampered Investigation Into Corruption; (5) The Objective Of Protecting High Officials From Harassment Is Itself A Discriminatory Objective That Cannot Justify Different Treatment For Corruption Investigations; (6) Corruption Is An Enemy Of The Nation And Corrupt Public Servants, However High Their Position, Must Be Tracked Down And Punished Equally; And (7) The Very Group Of High-Ranking Bureaucrats Whose Misconduct Requires Investigation Would Decide Whether Investigation Should Commence, Placing Them In Conflict Of Interest.
On this section: Sections 155-156 Allow Local Police To Investigate Without Prior Sanction; Section 197 Provides Sanction Requirement For Prosecution Of Government Servants (Distinguished From Investigation Requirement In Section 6-A); Section 195 Allows Submission Of Cases By Aggrieved Authorities; Section 340 Addresses Perjury. Court Found Anomaly Where Local Police Can Investigate Senior Officials But CBI Cannot Without Prior Approval.
-
Badrinarayana Jaganathan vs The State of Karnataka
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 155, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal proceedings initiated on allegations that fail to disclose prima facie ingredients of the offences charged, where the underlying dispute is fundamentally civil in nature (employment termination), and where procedural irregularities and discrepancies suggest deliberate misclassification of the matter to transform a civil dispute into criminal proceedings for purposes of coercion or settlement, constitute an abuse of legal process and travesty of justice warranting quashing of the chargesheet and proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The essential ingredients of criminal offences must be strictly established: Section 323 requires voluntary act of causing actual hurt; Sections 504 and 509 require specific intentional insult with contextual details and intent to provoke or shock sense of decency; Section 506 requires threat with intent to cause alarm, not mere assertion of consequences of lawful termination. Mere allegations without substantiation of these ingredients do not justify continuation of criminal proceedings.
On this section: Authorization for registration of FIR - Court noted investigating officer obtained requisite authorization before FIR registration
-
Om Prakash vs Union of India
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 155, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Offences under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, are non-cognizable in the sense that police officers cannot arrest without warrant and cannot investigate without Magistrate's order under Section 155 Cr.P.C. However, such offences are also bailable, because (1) they relate to recovery of revenue rather than punishment for grave crimes, (2) Sections 20 and 104(3) mandatorily empower officers to release arrested persons on bail, (3) the legislative scheme indicates intent that such offences should be bailable, and (4) the deeming language in Sections 9A and 104(4) making offences non-cognizable does not negate bailability. Non-cognizable and bailable are separate characteristics, and a statute can make offences both non-cognizable (restricting arrest authority) and bailable (entitling accused to bail).
On this section: Deals with investigation of non-cognizable cases. Requires Magistrate's order for investigation and bars arrest without warrant in non-cognizable cases. Court extensively references this in explaining consequences of non-cognizable classification.
-
State of A. P vs Aravapally Venkanna
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 155, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an FIR discloses ingredients of a cognizable offence and the allegations, taken at face value, constitute the offence charged, and there is no material to show that the FIR is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, the High Court cannot exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC to quash the FIR at the threshold of investigation. The assessment of whether evidence collected during investigation is sufficient to establish guilt is a matter for trial and not for the High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction. The inherent power should be exercised sparingly and only in rarest of rare cases where the allegations do not disclose any offence or the proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or abuse of process.
On this section: Magistrate's authority to order investigation into non-cognizable offences
-
Sri Kartik Alias Kartik S/o. Umakantsa vs The State of Karnataka
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 155, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Investigation into a non-cognizable offence without prior permission from the Magistrate as required under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. is without authority of law, rendering the resulting charge sheet and proceedings liable to be quashed.
On this section: Mandatory requirement for police to obtain Magistrate's order before investigating a non-cognizable case.
-
Balaguru vs The State Rep by Its
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 155, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Mere assembly of five or more persons for peaceful protest without any criminal force, intent to commit an offence, or any of the specific ingredients enumerated in Section 141 IPC cannot constitute unlawful assembly. When prosecution materials fail to prima facie establish the essential ingredients of the offence, continuing the prosecution constitutes abuse of process of law and the FIR should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
On this section: Magistrate's order for investigation of non-cognizable offences - cited to establish procedural requirements
-
R.c.sharma vs C.b.i.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 155, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where the allegations in a complaint disclose only a non-cognizable offence, the police cannot investigate such offence without obtaining prior written permission from a competent Magistrate as mandated by Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This is a mandatory provision, and any investigation conducted in violation thereof is illegal and invalid. Consequently, all proceedings arising from such illegal investigation, including charges framed and trial conducted, must be quashed and the accused discharged. The nature of the offence must be determined from the facts available at the time of registration, and police cannot circumvent this requirement by initially registering an FIR under a cognizable offence when the facts disclose only a non-cognizable offence.
On this section: Procedure for information regarding non-cognizable offence - mandates entry in book and referral to Magistrate
-
K. Guravaiah vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 155, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A police officer cannot register a crime or issue an F.I.R in matters relating to Section 145 Cr.P.C (property disputes likely to cause breach of peace) because Section 145 does not contemplate any offence and the proper procedure is for the police officer to place a report before the Executive Magistrate, not to register a crime. Registration of crime in such matters exceeds the powers of police officers under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and is procedurally improper. Such registration can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C as it is outside the realm of law and creates opportunity for abuse of power.
On this section: Procedure for receiving information relating to non-cognizable offences and referral to Magistrate. Court held that this section also does not apply to Section 145 matters.
-
THE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs VICKY VAJUBHAI BAREJIYA
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 155, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Investigation conducted by the police into non-cognizable offences without the prior permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 155(2) CrPC is illegal and void, rendering the court unable to take cognizance of the resulting chargesheet.
On this section: Mandatory requirement for police to seek Magistrate's permission before investigating non-cognizable cases.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners in brief is that the respondents-authorities are not following the provisions of Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C., a:nd Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short tsNSS') by initiating action to register FIRs against the unoflicial respondents, respectively, basing on tfe complaints made by the petitioners, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary. 5. Per contra,learned Government …
-
… Shorn of tlnnecessary details, the case of the petitioners in brief is that the respondents-authorities are not following the provisions of Section 15a(3) of the Cr.P.C., and Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short tsNSSJ by initiating action to register FIRs against the unofficial respondents, respectively, basing on the complaints made by the petitioners, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary. fri 5. Per contra, learned …
-
… Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petilioners in brief is that the respondents-authorities are not following the provisions of Section 15a(3) of the Cr.P.C., and Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short BNSS) by initiating action to register FIRs against the unoffrcial respondents, respectively, basing on the complaints made by the petitioners, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary. 5. Per contra,learned Government …
Questions about Section 174
What have the courts held on Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs Director, Cbi (06 May 2014) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 155, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Sections 155-156 Allow Local Police To Investigate Without Prior Sanction; Section 197 Provides Sanction Requirement For Prosecution Of Government Servants (Distinguished From Investigation Requirement In Section 6-A); Section 195 Allows Submission Of Cases By Aggrieved Authorities; Section 340 Addresses Perjury. Court Found Anomaly Where Local Police Can Investigate Senior Officials But CBI Cannot Without Prior Approval. Another 8 judgments on this section are set out below, 4 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNSS 174, section 174 BNSS, section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bnss 174(4) and bnss 174(2). Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 9 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs Director, Cbi (06 May 2014).
What should I read with Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward CrPC 155 (Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of suchcases), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 174, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 359. Compounding of offences1355 words
- 187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours1122 words
- 2. Definitions956 words
- 243. Trial for more than one offence930 words
- 35. When police may arrest without warrant881 words
- 480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence823 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.