Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable case
Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with police officer’s power to investigate cognizable case. Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIV: Provided that conside The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIV:
Provided that considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the Superintendent of Police may require the Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate the case.
(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 210 may, after considering the application supported by an affidavit made under sub-section (4) of section 173, and after making such inquiry as he thinks necessary and submission made in this regard by the police officer, order such an investigation as above-mentioned.
(4) Any Magistrate empowered under section 210, may, upon receiving a complaint against a public servant arising in course of the discharge of his official duties, order investigation, subject to—
(a) receiving a report containing facts and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to him; and
(b) after consideration of the assertions made by the public servant as to the situation that led to the incident so alleged.
Section 175, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 156 Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
This section refers to
Referred to by 2
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.
-
Priyanka Srivastava vs State of U. P.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 156, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving Section 156(3) CrPC applications, particularly in commercial disputes and debt recovery matters where statutory alternative remedies exist under special statutes like SARFAESI Act and Recovery of Debts due to Banks Act, a Magistrate must exercise strict judicial application of mind before ordering investigation. The Magistrate must: (1) Consider allegations in their entirety and nature, (2) Evaluate whether allegations remotely disclose cognizable offence, (3) Assess whether forwarding to police is conducive to justice, (4) Note dates of incidents and any abnormal delays in reporting, (5) Conduct preliminary enquiry in commercial dispute categories to verify credibility, (6) Consider legislative protections afforded to secured creditors under special acts like Section 32 SARFAESI Act, (7) Be vigilant against abuse of Section 156(3) as tool for harassment and extracting settlements. Mere mechanical order 'as per application' without stated reasons is erroneous. Applications under Section 156(3) should be supported by sworn affidavit from applicant, making applicant accountable for false allegations under Section 191 IPC. FIR registration, while mandatory under Section 154 upon cognizable offence information, does not mandate investigation if preliminary enquiry reveals lack of credibility. Criminal proceedings cannot be used to pressure financial institutions into favorable settlements in debt disputes where statutory forums (DRT/DRAT) exist for resolution.
On this section: Police power to investigate cognizable offences without Magistrate order; Court established that Section 156(3) direction is reminder/intimation to exercise plenary powers
-
Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 156, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-3.pdf 2007-12-07 (not same-date order-4 ROP). Crl A 2007. A magistrate under CrPC 156(3) can order the police to register and investigate a cognizable case and to monitor that investigation; the High Court should not ordinarily be approached first under 482/226 for a police investigation. Map crpc 156 and successor bnss 175.
On this section: Successor of CrPC 156 (mapping.csv near-identical). Magistrate-ordered investigation teaching carries to BNSS 175.
-
Sondabhai Hanubhai Bharwad vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 156, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the same act constitutes an offence both under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and under the Indian Penal Code, specifically where minerals are dishonestly removed from government land without consent (theft under IPC), the two offences are distinct in their ingredients and ingredients are different. Therefore, Section 22 of the MMDR Act, which restricts cognizance of offences under the Act to complaints by authorized officers, does not bar prosecution under the IPC for the distinct offence of theft. The police can register FIR for theft, investigate, and submit report to Magistrate for cognizance under Section 190(1)(d) CrPC, while simultaneously the authorized officer can file complaint for MMDR Act violation requiring different procedure for Magistrate cognizance. Both prosecutions can proceed as the offences are distinct and the bar against double jeopardy applies only to identical offences.
On this section: Magistrate power to direct police investigation on private complaint; relevant to distinction between police and authorized officer initiated proceedings
-
Kalubhai Dulabhai Khachar vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 156, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where conduct constitutes an offence under both the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 and the Indian Penal Code, the provisions of the MMDR Act do not impliedly or explicitly exclude prosecution under the IPC. Police can register FIR, investigate and submit charge sheets for theft of minerals under IPC Sections 378-379 based on discovery of unauthorized removal of minerals from government land. Magistrates can take cognizance of theft offences on police reports under Section 190(1)(d) CrPC without awaiting complaint from authorized MMDR officer. However, for offences constituting breach of mining lease or unauthorized mining specifically under MMDR Act Section 21, cognizance by Magistrate can only be taken upon complaint in writing by person authorized by Central or State Government as required by MMDR Act Section 22. These are distinct offences with different ingredients and prosecution for both does not violate Article 20(2) protection against double jeopardy provided person is not punished twice for identical offence. The Public Trust Doctrine establishes that natural resources are national assets requiring protection through multiple enforcement mechanisms. Police duty under Sections 149-152 CrPC to prevent cognizable offences includes authority and responsibility to investigate illegal mining even without prior authorization from mining authorities.
On this section: Police power to investigate cognizable offences; related to jurisdictional limits on Magistrate authority
-
Thermax Ltd. vs K. M. Johny
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 156, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A dispute arising purely from contractual obligations, even when it results in financial loss to the claimant, cannot be converted into a criminal offense under Sections 405, 406 or 420 IPC without establishing the essential ingredient of dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. The appropriate remedy for breach of contract is a civil suit for damages, not criminal prosecution. When a complainant has previously filed identical complaints with police authorities which were investigated and closed as civil in nature, and thereafter files another complaint before a Magistrate suppressing such material facts and seeking criminal investigation, such action constitutes abuse of process of law. In the absence of specific statutory provision imposing vicarious liability on company directors and managers, they cannot be prosecuted under IPC sections for acts of the company. Section 34 IPC requires prior concert or meeting of minds with prearranged plan, which must be evident from the complaint itself.
On this section: Direction by Magistrate for police investigation - Court held that Magistrate can issue such direction only when complaint discloses material facts constituting offense. If complaint is of civil nature or lacks essential ingredients, such direction is untenable.
-
State of Maharashtra vs Ashok
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 156, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Special Court under MCOCA may take cognizance of an offence on a private complaint, but such power is controlled by and must be exercised in compliance with Section 23(2) of MCOCA, which mandates that no Special Court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act without the previous sanction of a Police Officer not below the rank of Additional Director General of Police. Section 9(1) and Section 23(2) of MCOCA must be read harmoniously and together, not in isolation. The provisions of Section 25 of MCOCA, which give overriding effect to MCOCA over the Criminal Procedure Code, preclude the Special Judge from invoking Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to conduct independent inquiry on a private complaint and take cognizance without compliance with Section 23. Private complaints must follow the procedure outlined in Section 23 of MCOCA: forward to officer under Section 23(1)(a) for inquiry by police officer under Section 23(1)(b), and only thereafter take cognizance upon obtaining sanction under Section 23(2).
On this section: Police investigation on Court's direction. Held that Special Judge cannot invoke this provision to order investigation on a private complaint under MCOCA without following Section 23 procedure, as MCOCA has overriding effect.
-
Shashidhar vs State of Karnataka
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 156, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An order directing further investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be passed in the absence of valid sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. However, sanction is not required if, at the time of taking cognizance, the public servant is not holding the same post which is alleged to have been misused or abused. The relevant date for determining whether sanction is required is the date on which cognizance is taken, not the date on which the alleged misconduct occurred. If the public servant has been transferred from the office allegedly misused and is holding a different office (whether by promotion or otherwise), the protection under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not apply, and no sanction is necessary.
On this section: Power to direct investigation by Magistrate. Court examined whether this power can be exercised against a public servant without prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
-
Maniprasad vs State of Kerala
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 156, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Not every breach of contract constitutes criminal cheating. For an offense under Section 420 IPC to be made out, the complainant must establish that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise or representation. If the intention to cheat develops after the transaction is entered into, or if there is mere non-performance of a promise without initial culpable dishonest intention, no criminal offense of cheating can be said to have been committed. The real test for quashing criminal proceedings is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offense or merely constitute a civil dispute regarding breach of contract.
On this section: Procedure for Police to Investigate on basis of private complaint forwarded by Magistrate - applicable procedural mechanism in this case
-
Sushila Devi vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 156, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once a charge-sheet is filed after completion of investigation by the investigating agency in the competent court, the process of monitoring by the Supreme Court for the purpose of ensuring the investigating agency's proper performance comes to an end. Thereafter, all matters relating to the trial of the accused, including matters falling within the scope of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, shall be dealt with exclusively by the competent trial court. The Supreme Court shall not continue to monitor the trial phase, as the Constitution envisages an independent and impartial tribunal (the trial court) for dispute resolution, and judicial monitoring of the trial would constitute an improper interference with the trial court's inherent jurisdiction and discretionary authority. The remedy for any error committed by the trial court lies in appeal or judicial review, not in continued Supreme Court intervention.
On this section: Judicial Magistrate's power to direct investigation on complaint of private person
-
Sunil Mehta vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 156, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Evidence recorded during preliminary inquiry under Section 202 CrPC before the accused appears in court cannot be used to frame charges against the accused under Section 246 CrPC without fresh evidence being produced and recorded under Section 244 CrPC in the presence and with the opportunity of cross-examination by the accused. The accused has a fundamental right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses before charges are framed, as this right is essential for the accused to demonstrate that allegations are groundless and no case exists warranting framing of charges. The scheme and procedure of Chapter XV (dealing with complaints and preliminary inquiry) is distinct from Chapter XIX Part B (dealing with trial of warrant cases on private complaint), and evidence recorded at the preliminary stage cannot substitute for evidence properly recorded under Section 244 in the presence of the accused.
On this section: Power of Magistrate to direct police investigation on private complaint
-
State Rep. by Insepctor of Police, Chennai vs N. S. Gnaneswaran
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 156, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The procedural requirement under Section 154(2) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to issue a copy of the First Information Report to the informant is merely a directory provision and not a mandatory requirement. Non-compliance with this directory provision does not vitiate the registration of an FIR or the subsequent investigation, provided that: (1) the information recorded discloses the commission of a cognizable offence; (2) the party seeking to challenge the FIR fails to demonstrate any actual prejudice or injustice caused by the procedural lapse; and (3) the court examining the validity of the FIR must apply the doctrine of prejudice by looking to the substance of the matter rather than focusing on technical procedural violations. Therefore, an FIR registered on the basis of recorded information revealing a cognizable offence is valid and investigation may proceed despite failure to strictly comply with the procedural requirement of issuing a copy to the informant.
On this section: Scope of police officer's authority to investigate cognizable offence; Court held suo motu investigation based on received information is permissible within scope of section 156
-
State of Maharashtra vs Sarabgdharsingh Shivdassing Chavan
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 156, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Chief Minister of a State cannot lawfully issue instructions to police authorities to give special treatment in the registration of criminal cases to any individual or family, regardless of their political status, because such interference violates the mandatory statutory obligation of police to register cognizable offences under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code and breaches the constitutional guarantee of equality before law under Article 14 of the Constitution. Any such executive direction is unconstitutional, constitutes an abuse of power, and subverts the rule of law, which is a vital component of the constitutional framework ensuring equal protection and access to justice for all citizens.
On this section: Cited to establish that police officer's power to investigate cognizable offence without Magistrate's order is statutorily recognized and not subject to executive control in specific cases
-
Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 156, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a Magistrate empowered under Section 190 Cr.P.C. directs an investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in respect of a cognizable offence based on a complaint, the investigating officer is statutorily bound to conduct such investigation, and cannot unilaterally refuse to do so on the sole ground that he believes the alleged offence was committed outside his territorial jurisdiction. The question of whether a particular court has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint is for the court to decide after considering the complete factual matrix placed before it upon completion of investigation, not for the investigating agency to prejudge at the investigation stage. The protection afforded by Section 156(2) Cr.P.C. extends to investigations ordered under Section 156(3), ensuring that no investigation proceeding can be questioned on grounds that the investigating officer was not empowered to conduct it, thereby obligating the investigating agency to place all facts before the court for the court's final jurisdictional determination.
On this section: Establishes power of police officer in charge of police station to investigate cognizable cases without Magistrate's order within territorial limits of the station
-
Kamar Jahan vs Aas Mohammad
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
If the names of the witnesses and the accused are clearly known, and no complex recovery of evidence by police is required, the Magistrate may accept the application under Section 175(3) of BNSS as a private complaint rather than directing a police investigation.
On this section: Consideration of whether to order a police investigation or register the matter as a private complaint.
-
NIDHI ABRAHAM vs MANOJ ISSAC AND OTHERS
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Magistrate possesses the power to monitor and direct the timely completion of a police investigation where the informant demonstrates a grievance regarding delay or improper conduct.
On this section: Empowers the Magistrate to monitor investigations.
-
Suchet Singh vs Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 156, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An FIR cannot be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. merely because it follows a civil or criminal proceeding. Each case must be evaluated on its specific facts and circumstances. The determination of whether an FIR is a counterblast often involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be resolved by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and such determination should be left to the wisdom of the trial court. When allegations in an FIR prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences, the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the genuineness or otherwise of the allegations, and criminal proceedings cannot be terminated at the initial stage by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
On this section: Provision allowing Magistrate to direct police to investigate on complaint; applied to understand the procedural history of FIR registration
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.
-
… that in instances where ambiguity exists regarding the civil or criminal nature of a dispute, a detailed procedural framework is to be followed, with oversight by an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police. Furthermore, learned Counsel has emphasized the institutional provisions enshrined under Sections 223 and 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(hereinafter referred to as "BNSS"). For the sake of handiness, the relevant provisions are reproduced herein below: 223. Examination of complainant. 1. A Magistrate having jurisdiction while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon …
-
… that in instances where ambiguity exists regarding the civil or criminal nature of a dispute, a detailed procedural framework is to be followed, with oversight by an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police. Furthermore, learned Counsel has emphasized the institutional provisions enshrined under Sections 223 and 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(hereinafter referred to as "BNSS"). For the sake of handiness, the relevant provisions are reproduced herein below: 223. Examination of complainant. 1. A Magistrate having jurisdiction while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon …
-
… that in instances where ambiguity exists regarding the civil or criminal nature of a dispute, a detailed procedural framework is to be followed, with oversight by an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police. Furthermore, learned Counsel has emphasized the institutional provisions enshrined under Sections 223 and 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(hereinafter referred to as "BNSS"). For the sake of handiness, the relevant provisions are reproduced herein below: 223. Examination of complainant. 1. A Magistrate having jurisdiction while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon …
Questions about Section 175
What have the courts held on Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Priyanka Srivastava vs State of U. P. (19 Mar 2015) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 156, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Police power to investigate cognizable offences without Magistrate order; Court established that Section 156(3) direction is reminder/intimation to exercise plenary powers. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2007 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 175 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 175, section 175 BNSS, section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bnss 175(3) and bnss 175(4). Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Priyanka Srivastava vs State of U. P. (19 Mar 2015).
What should I read with Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 173 (Information in cognizable cases), section 210 (Cognizance of offences by Magistrate), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward CrPC 156 (Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 175, 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.