Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 210
Cognizance of offences by Magistrate
(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, including any complaint filed by a person authorised under any special law, which constitutes such offence;
(b) upon a police report (submitted in any mode including electronic mode) 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.
Why this exists
This provision continues a rule found earlier in Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Its purpose is to define the exact moment and manner in which a Magistrate becomes legally seized of a criminal matter — the crucial first step before any inquiry, summons, or trial can happen. By listing three distinct routes (private complaint, police report, or other information/personal knowledge), it ensures that justice is accessible whether or not the police have acted, while still keeping the process anchored to a judicial officer's application of mind. The BNSS update explicitly allows police reports in electronic mode, modernising the process for a digital era, and clarifies that special-law-authorised complainants (like officers under tax or environmental statutes) can also approach the Magistrate.
How courts read it
Under the old identical provision (Section 190 CrPC), the Supreme Court repeatedly held that 'taking cognizance' does not mean issuing summons or starting a formal trial — it means the Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence for the purpose of proceeding further (see R.R. Chari v. State of U.P., and later refined in cases like Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy v. Narayana Reddy). Courts have held that cognizance is taken of the offence, not the offender, and that mere receipt of a complaint or report doesn't automatically mean cognizance has been taken — application of judicial mind is essential. These principles are expected to continue guiding interpretation of Section 210 BNSS since the language is substantially retained.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: A criminal case can only start if the police file a report (chargesheet).
Fact: Section 210 clearly allows a Magistrate to take cognizance directly from a private complaint or other information, without needing a police report first. - Myth: 'Taking cognizance' means the trial has started.
Fact: Courts have clarified that taking cognizance only means the Magistrate has applied his mind to proceed further — it is an early procedural step, not the trial itself. - Myth: Only paper-based police reports are valid under this section.
Fact: The BNSS explicitly allows police reports to be submitted in electronic mode as well.