Definitions
Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with definitions. In this Code, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) "bailable offence" means an offence which is shown as bailable in the First Schedule, or which is made bailable by any other law for the time being in force; 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 Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried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.
In this Code, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) "bailable offence" means an offence which is shown as bailable in the First Schedule, or which is made bailable by any other law for the time being in force; and "non-bailable offence" means any other offence;
(b) "charge" includes any head of charge when the charge contains more heads than one;
(c) "cognizable offence" means an offence for which, and "cognizable case" means a case in which, a police officer may, in
accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant;
(d) "complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.
Explanation.-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;
(e) "High Court" means,-
(i) in relation to any State, the High Court for that State ;
(ii) in relation to a Union territory to which the juris- diction of the High Court for a State has been extended by law, that High Court;
(iii) in relation to any other Union territory, the highest Court of criminal appeal for that territory other than the Supreme Court of India;
(f) "India" means the territories to which this Code extends;
(g) "inquiry" means every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or Court;
(h) "investigation" includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf;
(i) "judicial proceeding" includes any proceeding in the course of which evidence is or may be legally taken on oath ;
(j) "local jurisdiction", in relation to a Court or Magistrate, means the local area within which the Court or Magistrate may exercise all or any of its or his powers under
this Code [and such local area may comprise the whole of the State, or any part of the State, as the State Government may, by notification, specify];
Ins. by Act 45 of 1978, s. 2 (w.e,f, 18-12-1978).
(k) "metropolitan area" means the area declared, or deemed to be declared, under section 8, to be a metropolitan area ;
(l) "non-cognizable offence" means an offence for which, and "non- cognizable case" means a case in which, a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant;
(m) "notification" means a notification published in the Official Gazette ;
(n) "offence" means any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force and includes any act in respect of which a complaint may be made under section 20 of the Cattle-trespass Act, 1871 ( 1 of 1871);
(o) "officer in charge of a police station" includes, when the officer in charge of the police station is absent from the station house or unable from illness or other cause to perform his duties, the police officer present at the station-house who is next in rank to such officer and is above the rank of constable or, when the State Government so directs, any other police officer so present ;
(p) "place" includes a house, building, tent, vehicle and vessel;
(q) "pleader", when used with reference to any proceeding in any Court, means a person authorised by or under any law for the time being in force, to practise in such Court, and includes any other person appointed with the permission of the Court to act in such proceeding ;
(r) "police report" means a report forwarded by a police officer to Magistrate under sub-section (2) of section 173;
(s) "police station" means any post or place declared generally or specially by the State Government, to be a police station, and includes any local area specified by the State Government in this behalf ;
(t) "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this Code;
(u) "Public Prosecutor" means any person appointed under section 24, and includes any person acting under the directions of a Public Prosecutor ;
(v) "sub-division" means a sub-division of a district;
(w) "summons-case" means a case relating to an offence, and not being a warrant-case ;
(x) "warrant-case" means a case relating to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years;
(y) words and expressions used herein and not defined but defined in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) have the meanings respectively assigned to them in that Code.
Section 2, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 2 Definitions Close, with changes 85%
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.
-
Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception in criminal procedure. The presumption of innocence, being a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution, places the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt. Courts must exercise their discretion in granting or refusing bail judiciously, considering all relevant factors including the nature and gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the conduct of the accused during investigation, the delay in trial, and the likelihood of the accused absconding. Investigating agencies must comply with Section 41 and 41A of the CrPC by recording reasons for arrest and for not arresting. Non-compliance with these provisions entitles the accused to bail. Courts must act as guardians of liberty and ensure that personal liberty is protected in accordance with the procedure established by law.
On this section: Definition of bailable and non-bailable offences
-
Nevada Properties Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director LTD vs The State of Maharashtra Home Department S. H. O
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The expression 'any property' appearing in Section 102(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not include immovable property. A police officer does not have the power to attach, seize, and seal an immovable property under Section 102 of the Code. The word 'seize' in Section 102 means actual taking of possession which cannot be done with immovable property without dispossessing the occupant, which power is not conferred by Section 102. Immovable property disputes must be adjudicated by Civil Courts or through specialized statutory procedures like the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 or Chapter VIIA of the Code. However, police may seize documents or papers of title relating to immovable property as this is distinct from seizure of the immovable property itself.
On this section: Provides that words and meanings defined in the IPC apply equally to the Code, making the definition of 'movable property' in IPC Section 22 applicable to the Code.
-
Madhav Saran Agarwal vs Msx Mall Pvt. LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 138/141 proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act against a corporate debtor are covered by the moratorium provision in Section 14(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as such proceedings relate to transactions evidencing debt of the corporate debtor and result in depletion of its assets through compensation orders, thereby directly impacting the object of the moratorium which is to preserve the corporate debtor's assets during the insolvency resolution process so it can continue as a going concern and be rehabilitated. However, the moratorium applies only to the corporate debtor and not to natural persons (Directors/officers) in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the corporate debtor, who remain liable to prosecution under Section 138/141 as the corporate debtor is a necessary party to such proceedings.
On this section: Cited to distinguish between police reports and private complaints under Section 32A
-
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: Definition of 'complaint' in CrPC
-
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: Definition of cognizable offence; relevant for determining police authority to arrest and investigate
-
Kalubhai Dulabhai Khachar vs State of Gujarat
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: Definitions of cognizable offence, complaint, and investigation
-
Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs State of M. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a claim of juvenility is raised before any court, the court must conduct a simplified inquiry under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 read with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, following a strict hierarchical order of evidence: (1) Matriculation or equivalent certificates, (2) Date of birth certificate from school first attended (other than play school), (3) Birth certificate from corporation, municipal authority, or panchayat, or (4) Medical opinion only in the absence of the foregoing. Once any of the first three categories of documents is produced and not controverted, the court shall accept them as conclusive proof of age and pass a finding of juvenility if the age is below 18 years on the date of commission of the offence. The court shall not conduct investigative or trial-like inquiries, shall not require witnesses to be examined merely because they made entries in documents, shall not conduct medical tests unless the documents are found to be fabricated or manipulated, and shall complete the age determination within 30 days. A school admission register produced by the school principal is relevant and conclusive evidence of date of birth when consistently entered and not controverted, and courts shall not second-guess such entries by conducting fishing inquiries or requiring corroborating evidence such as horoscopes. The date relevant for determining juvenility is the date of commission of the alleged offence, and once established, the juvenile is entitled to all benefits under the Juvenile Justice Act regardless of when the claim is raised.
On this section: Referenced to define 'inquiry' as every inquiry other than a trial conducted by a Magistrate or Court. Court held that the inquiry under Section 7A must follow this meaning, not the procedures of criminal trial.
-
Inst. of Chartered Accountants of India vs Vimal Kumar Surana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an act or omission constitutes a violation of a special statutory regulation (such as Sections 24, 24A, 25, 26 of the Chartered Accountants Act) and simultaneously constitutes one or more distinct offences under the Indian Penal Code (such as impersonation under Section 419, forgery under Sections 465, 468, or seal counterfeiting under Sections 472, 473), a person may be prosecuted and punished for offences under the IPC notwithstanding the existence of the special statute and its prescribed regulatory penalties, provided the offences are distinct in their legal ingredients. The requirement under Section 28 of the Chartered Accountants Act for Council sanction applies only to prosecution 'under the Act' itself and does not extend to prosecution for IPC offences that happen to arise from conduct violating the Act. The expression 'without prejudice to any other proceedings' in Sections 24A and 26 demonstrates parliamentary intent to permit parallel criminal proceedings. Interpretation of special legislation that would preclude IPC prosecution must be avoided where such interpretation creates discrimination in treatment of serious criminal conduct or renders the special statute vulnerable to constitutional challenge under Article 14.
On this section: Interpreted to establish procedure for taking cognizance and that Section 195 does not apply to Income Tax or Trade Tax authorities; Section 4 makes IPC applicable subject to special enactments
-
Rajni vs State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When documentary evidence in the form of school certificate and birth certificate from municipal authority showing date of birth is available, the Juvenile Justice Board cannot order medical examination for age determination. The hierarchy prescribed under Section 94(2) of Juvenile Justice Act 2015 must be strictly followed: school/matriculation certificate first, then birth certificate from corporation/municipality/panchayat, and only in absence of these can medical examination be ordered. The date of birth mentioned in school certificate is determinative of age and cannot be ignored. Further, the Juvenile Justice Board has no power of review under the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 to revisit its earlier acceptance of a date of birth in a previous proceeding. Additionally, when a juvenile accused of heinous offence has been on bail for more than three years without evidence of misuse, interference with bail order is not warranted unless there is evidence of misuse of liberty.
On this section: Procedure for trial in summons case when Juvenile Justice Board disposes matter
-
Honnaiah T. H vs The State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An informant/injured victim has the legal standing to file a criminal revision petition challenging an order passed during trial, provided the order is not merely interlocutory but substantially affects the rights of the parties or could result in gross miscarriage of justice. The test for determining whether an order is interlocutory is whether it is of a purely interim or temporary nature that does not decide or touch upon important rights or liabilities of parties. Any order that substantially affects the rights of parties, such as an order refusing to mark crucial evidence as an exhibit, is not interlocutory and is therefore subject to revision. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC can be exercised at the instance of a private complainant or informant where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence or committed a manifest illegality that could result in gross miscarriage of justice.
On this section: Defines 'victim' as a person who has suffered loss or injury caused by the act or omission for which the accused is charged, including guardians or legal heirs.
-
Kaushik Chaterjee vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The question of territorial jurisdiction in criminal proceedings is a question of fact that must be established through evidence and cannot be decided at the transfer petition stage. The trial court, not the Supreme Court, is the appropriate forum to decide jurisdictional issues after evidence is led on the place of commission of the offence and other relevant factors enumerated in Sections 177 to 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, transfer petitions seeking transfer on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction must be dismissed, leaving it open to the parties to raise and have the trial court decide the jurisdictional issue during the trial.
On this section: Distinguishes between complaints and police reports; relevant to determining when a Magistrate can return a complaint under Section 201.
-
Kaushik Chatterjee vs The State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Questions of territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases depend upon facts to be established by evidence and must be decided by the trial court based on the provisions of Sections 177 to 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A transfer petition cannot be granted on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction before evidence is marshaled, as the Supreme Court cannot determine factual questions relating to the place of commission of offence or other jurisdictional factors without evidence. The trial court is the appropriate forum to consider such issues after evidence is led by the parties.
On this section: These sections comprehensively govern territorial jurisdiction of criminal courts, the stage at which jurisdiction objections can be raised, the distinction between inquiry, investigation and trial, and the consequences of proceedings conducted without jurisdiction
-
Om Prakash vs Union of India
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: Defines bailable offence as one shown bailable in First Schedule or made bailable by other law. Court uses this definition to determine bailability of excise and customs offences.
-
Securities & Exchange Board of India vs Ajay Agarwal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Procedural provisions of law, including Section 11-B and Section 11(4)(b) of the SEBI Act, can be applied retrospectively to alleged misconduct occurring prior to the enactment of such amendments, because: (1) procedural laws apply to all actions, pending and future, and no person has a vested right in any course of procedure; (2) such application does not violate Article 20(1) of the Constitution as the respondent has not been charged with an 'offence' or subjected to a 'penalty' in the criminal law sense, but has merely been restrained from certain activities by an administrative order; (3) even if viewed as operating prospectively, the actual exercise of power by the SEBI Chairman on 31 March 2004 was lawful as the amendments were then in force; and (4) the respondent's receipt of adequate notice through the show cause notice invoking Section 11-B and fair hearing opportunity negates any procedural unfairness.
On this section: Definition of offence for criminal law context; Court contrasts this with the regulatory nature of SEBI proceedings
-
Vaman Narain Ghiya vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires that an accused person must be in actual custody to file a bail application before the High Court or Court of Session. The protective umbrella provided by anticipatory bail under Section 438 is of limited duration, intended only to allow the accused to move the regular court for bail. Once that limited period expires, the accused cannot bypass the statutory requirement of Section 439 by seeking to extend Section 438 protection. The distinction between Sections 438 and 439 must be maintained, and no part of the statute can be rendered redundant or dead letter by circumventing the express requirement of custody under Section 439.
On this section: Defines 'bailable offence' and 'non-bailable offence' classifications for determining bail eligibility
-
Ritesh Sinha vs State of Uttar Pradesh Home Department Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case resulted in a split decision with no clear ratio decidendi. Justice Desai held that: (1) Voice sample is physical non-testimonial evidence not covered by Article 20(3); (2) A Magistrate has ancillary or implied power under Section 5 of Identification of Prisoners Act and Section 53 of Criminal Procedure Code to authorize voice sample collection during investigation; (3) Voice prints are like fingerprints and fall within inclusive definition of 'measurements' in Prisoners Act; (4) Voice sample can be included in 'examination' under Section 53 through doctrine of ejusdem generis. Justice Alam held that: (1) There is no express or evidently applicable provision in law authorizing compulsion to give voice sample; (2) Explanation (a) to Section 53 deals only with material and tangible bodily substances, not voice; (3) Voice sample cannot be included in definition of 'measurements' in Prisoners Act; (4) Court should not invent law through interpretation; (5) Law must come from legislature, not through court process.
On this section: Investigation includes collection of evidence. Both judges acknowledged this but disagreed on whether voice sample collection falls within this definition without express authorization.
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.
Questions about Section 2
What have the courts held on Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation (11 Jul 2022) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Definition of bailable and non-bailable offences. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 2 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 2, section 2 CRPC, section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 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 Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation (11 Jul 2022).
What should I read with Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on Cattle-Trespass Act 20 (Power to make complaints), section 8 (Metropolitan areas), section 24 (Public Prosecutors), section 173 (Report of police officer on completion of investigation), so none of them can safely be read on its own. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 2 (Definitions), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 2, 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
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
- 145. Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to causebreach of peace735 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.