Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 175
Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable case
(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.
Why this exists
This provision continues the scheme earlier found in Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which lets police start investigating serious crimes immediately without waiting for court permission, since delay can let evidence disappear or offenders escape. Over time, courts noticed this power was sometimes misused — either police refusing to register genuine complaints, or citizens filing frivolous applications to force investigations. The requirement of a sworn affidavit (sub-section 3) was added to discourage baseless complaints, reflecting reforms courts had already been pushing for. The new sub-section (4), protecting public servants performing official duties from being investigated on a mere complaint, is meant to shield honest officials from harassment and vexatious cases while still allowing genuine wrongdoing to be probed after proper scrutiny.
How courts read it
Under the older, similarly worded Section 156 CrPC, the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) held that police must register an FIR when information discloses a cognizable offence, leaving little discretion to refuse. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008), the Court clarified that a magistrate has wide power to ensure a proper investigation, including directing police action. Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015) is the direct source of the affidavit requirement now codified in sub-section (3), as the Court had criticized routine, unsubstantiated applications seeking investigation orders and asked for sworn affidavits to fix accountability on complainants. Sub-section (4)'s added protection for public servants echoes long-standing judicial concern (e.g., in cases dealing with sanction for prosecution of officials) about shielding bona fide official acts from politically or personally motivated complaints.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Police can only investigate a cognizable crime if a magistrate specifically permits it.
Fact: Under sub-section (1), police can start investigating cognizable offences on their own, without any magistrate's order. - Myth: If it's later found that the investigating officer wasn't authorized to handle the case, the whole investigation becomes invalid.
Fact: Sub-section (2) says this lack of authority alone can't be used to challenge or invalidate the proceedings. - Myth: Anyone can force a magistrate to order a police investigation just by asking.
Fact: Sub-section (3) requires a formal application backed by a sworn affidavit, and the magistrate must inquire before ordering an investigation. - Myth: Complaints against government officials are treated exactly like complaints against ordinary citizens.
Fact: Sub-section (4) requires extra steps — a senior officer's report and hearing the official's side — before a magistrate can order investigation into a public servant's official conduct.