Cognizance of offences by Magistrates
Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with cognizance of offences by Magistrates. Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence- (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence ; The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), 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.
(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.
Section 190, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 210 Cognizance of offences by Magistrate Close, with changes 82%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-22.pdf 2013-11-26 (not same-date order-23 ROP). Five-judge Constitution Bench, Crl A 829/2005. For CrPC 468, limitation for taking cognizance runs from the date of filing the complaint / institution of prosecution, not the later date on which the Magistrate actually takes cognizance under s.190; court delay after a timely complaint cannot bar the prosecution. Overrules the Krishna Pillai line. Map 190 (the cognizance event) and 468 (the bar) plus BNSS 210/514.
On this section: Cognizance under s.190 is the event 468 talks about, but limitation is not computed from the date the Magistrate actually takes it.
-
Sondabhai Hanubhai Bharwad vs State of Gujarat
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 taking cognizance on police report without complaint; applicable to IPC offences including theft
-
Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar vs State of Gujarat
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: Basis for Magistrate's power to direct investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
-
Ushaben vs Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a complaint alleges offences under both Section 498A IPC (cruelty - Chapter XXA) and Section 494 IPC (bigamy - Chapter XX), police can legally investigate the complaint as a whole without being fettered by the requirement of complaint by aggrieved person under Section 198 CrPC. This requirement applies only to the stage of court cognizance, not to police investigation. The requirement of complaint by aggrieved person under Section 198 CrPC is a procedural requirement for court cognizance under Section 190(1)(a), but does not restrict police investigation when the complaint alleges cognizable offences like Section 498A which can be investigated on police report under Section 198-A.
On this section: Cognizance of offences by Magistrates. Court clarified that Section 190 grants general power to take cognizance upon complaint, police report, or information, but is subject to specific restrictions in Sections 198 and 198-A.
-
Tofan Singh vs The State of Tamil Nadu through the Ineliigence Officer
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Officers designated under Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are 'police officers' within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Consequently, any confessional statement made to such officers is barred from being used as evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Additionally, a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act, as Section 67 is limited to calling for information and examining persons during an inquiry antecedent to investigation, not for recording confessions as substantive evidence.
On this section: Cognizance of offences by Magistrates upon complaint or police report
-
Thermax Ltd. vs K. M. Johny
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: Taking cognizance of offense - Court implied that Magistrate must ensure that complaint discloses criminal offense before taking cognizance or issuing directions under Section 156(3).
-
State of Maharashtra vs Ashok
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: Magistrate's power to take cognizance on complaint. Discussed in context of whether private complaints under Section 9(1) MCOCA exclude application of Section 190(1)(c) Cr.P.C.
-
Shashidhar vs State of Karnataka
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: Taking cognizance of offences by Magistrates. Court analyzed the scope of 'cognizance' and whether it extends to pre-cognizance stage of directing investigation or applies only at the formal taking of cognizance stage.
-
Babita Lila vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 195(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires that a complaint for false statements allegedly made in judicial proceedings must be filed by the court concerned or by a court/authority to which that court is 'subordinate' - meaning the authority to which appeals from the proceedings ordinarily and actually lie in the regular course of events. The word 'ordinarily' refers to appellate jurisdiction habitually and regularly exercised, not merely rank hierarchy. When the substantive law (here the Income Tax Act, 1961) clearly designates specific appellate forums and omits to confer appellate jurisdiction on a particular authority, courts cannot supply this legislative gap through judicial interpretation even if that authority is senior in rank, as such omission represents deliberate legislative intent. Therefore, the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation)-I, Bhopal was incompetent to lodge a criminal complaint for false statements made during income tax search proceedings conducted by Income Tax Officers of Nashik and Dhule, as the Deputy Director was not the appellate authority from their decisions; only the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) holds such appellate jurisdiction under the Income Tax Act.
On this section: Provides general power to Magistrates to take cognizance; Section 195 restricts this general power in specified cases
-
Balveer Singh vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a Magistrate actively considers an application for cognizance, applies independent mind, and deliberately refuses cognizance of certain offences before committing case to Sessions Court, the Sessions Court can still take cognizance of those offences on a fresh application by the complainant, because: (1) Sessions Court is acting as court of original jurisdiction under Section 193 and cognizance taken by it is first cognizance for jurisdictional purposes; (2) The Magistrate's refusal order does not attain absolute finality that bars Sessions Court's revisional jurisdiction; (3) No valuable right accrues from such refusal order as it is not final adjudication on merits; and (4) Provided proper opportunity of hearing is given to the accused before Sessions Court takes such cognizance, the action is constitutionally valid. The distinction between Magistrate playing 'active role' (taking/refusing cognizance after hearing) versus 'passive role' (merely forwarding for commitment) becomes relevant when Magistrate has already actively decided against cognizance, but does not create an absolute bar.
On this section: Cognizance of offences by Magistrates - empowers Magistrate to take cognizance of any offence upon receiving complaint, police report, or information. Court held Magistrate can take cognizance even of offences triable by Sessions Court.
-
Priyanka Srivastava vs State of U. P.
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: Magistrate taking cognizance; Court noted Magistrate has discretion whether to take cognizance or send matter to police under Section 156(3) as alternative
-
Rakesh vs State of U. P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Magistrate does not become functus officio (completely devoid of power) merely by accepting a police final report under Section 173 CrPC. The Magistrate retains the independent power to take cognizance of an offence on the basis of a complaint or protest petition filed by the first informant or complainant, even after accepting a negative final report, provided the Magistrate independently applies his mind to the facts and circumstances and follows the appropriate legal procedure under Sections 190, 200, and 202 CrPC. The mere acceptance of a final report does not foreclose or bar the exercise of this power.
On this section: Section 190(1)(a) and 190(1)(b) provide the Magistrate with alternative jurisdictional bases to take cognizance - either on original complaint or on police report; Magistrate is not bound by police conclusion
-
Sushila Devi vs State of Rajasthan
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 taking cognizance based on complaint
-
Pampapati S/o. Basavaraj Upase vs Suresh S/o. Basalingappa Rayreddi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Disputed questions of fact regarding cheque issuance, forgery allegations, and the authenticity of signatures cannot be resolved under Section 482 CrPC at the pre-trial stage. Such matters require full trial with proper examination of evidence, including expert opinion on handwriting. The plea of alibi cannot be considered before trial, and once such plea is taken, the burden shifts to the accused. The trial court's taking of cognizance and issuance of process in private complaints under Section 138 NI Act is not irregular merely because the accused disputes the facts; the trial court is competent to take cognizance on private complaints and issue process, with disputed facts to be resolved at trial.
On this section: Taking of cognizance by magistrate; court examined whether trial court properly took cognizance in private complaints
-
K.venkata Reddy vs State of Ap.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The High Court cannot exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings at the initial stage when serious allegations of fraud, cheating, and criminal conspiracy are levelled against the accused. The power to quash should be exercised sparingly and only in the rarest of rare cases. A full-fledged trial is necessary to determine the truth or otherwise of the allegations, and the court cannot conduct a mini-trial or enquire into the reliability and genuineness of the allegations at the stage of considering a petition to quash. Delay in registering an FIR, when explained by proper procedure under Section 156(3) CrPC based on magistrate's directions, does not render the allegations doubtful or provide grounds for quashing the proceedings.
On this section: Cognizance of Offence - The magistrate took cognizance based on the private complaint filed by the de-facto complainant
-
SUDAGAR SINGH vs DIDAR SINGH
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Magistrate is not bound to direct police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC merely because cognizable offences are alleged in a complaint. The Magistrate has discretionary power at the pre-cognizance stage to decide whether to direct police investigation or proceed as a complaint case under Sections 200-204 CrPC, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, Section 156(3) CrPC does not cast any duty upon the Magistrate to record reasons while exercising this discretion, and such omission is deliberate and for good reasons.
On this section: Defines the jurisdiction of Magistrate to take cognizance. Court noted that Magistrate can only direct police to investigate matters regarding which the Magistrate is competent to take cognizance.
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.
-
… it is stated that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act except upon a complaint in writing made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque. Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure indeed permits anyone to approach the Magistrate with a complaint especially because, it does not prescribe any qualification, the complainant is required to fulfill, to be eligible to file a complaint. But where an eligibility criterion for the complainant is contemplated, just …
-
… Now, the criminal court proceeds on such complaint as if it is a criminal complaint. Therefore, as in other criminal proceedings, on receipt of a complaint a Criminal court is to examine whether it should take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, it is to examine whether any case has been made out against the accused. If it decides that no case has been made out, it is to discharge the accused. When a prima facie case has been established against him, the trial proceeds by framing of charges and so on. If the …
Questions about Section 190
What have the courts held on Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases (26 Nov 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Cognizance under s.190 is the event 468 talks about, but limitation is not computed from the date the Magistrate actually takes it. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
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: CRPC 190, section 190 CRPC, section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. People searching for it also type crpc 190 in bnss and crpc 190 and 200. 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 Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases (26 Nov 2013).
What should I read with Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 210 (Cognizance of offences by Magistrate), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 190, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.