In ordinary language, word “cognizance” means detailed knowledge about or understating of something, whereas in legal parlance, it means taking of judicial notice of an offence. It is a pre-requisite to initiation of proceedings by a court or by a Magistrate.
The Code of Criminal Procedure does not define the term taking of cognizance but in general it means application of judicial mind to the facts mentioned in a complaint or to a Police report and it is different from issuance of process.
In R. R. Chari v State of U.P. AIR 1951 SC 207, the Supreme Court made it clear that the word cognizance is used by the court to indicate the point when the Magistrate or a Judge first takes judicial notice of an offence. Therefore, primarily cognizance of an offence takes place when a judicial Magistrate applies his mind and takes judicial notice of the offence, which is statutorily stipulated under Section 190(1) of the Code.
In Darshan Singh Ram Krishan v State of Maharashtra , 1971(2) SCC 654, it has been held by the Supreme Court that taking cognizance does not involve any formal action or indeed action of any kind but occurs as soon as the Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence.
In Prashant Srikant Purohit v State of Maharashtra, (2015) 7 SCC 440, the Supreme Court has held that taking judicial notice is nothing but perusing the report of the Police Officer, proceeding further on that report by opening the file and thereafter taking further steps to ensure the presence of the accused and all other consequential steps including at a later stage depending upon the nature of the offence alleged, to pass necessary order of committal to court of Session.
In Mona Panwar v High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, (2011) 3 SCC 496, the Supreme Court held that before the Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code, he must have not only applied his mind to the contents of the complaint presented before him, but he must have done so for the purpose of proceeding under Section 200 of the Code and the provisions following that section.
It was also held that when a Magistrate has applied his mind only for ordering an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code, or issued a warrant for the purposes of investigation, he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of an offence.
A Coordinate Bench in the case of Nasreen Bano vs State of J&K and others, OWP No. 526/2019, decided on 10.05.2019 has after taking note of the various judgments of the Supreme Court on this issue concluded as under:
“20. On conspectus of the judicial opinion on the issue, it can be safely held that when a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of offence and applies his mind for the purposes of the proceeding under the subsequent Section of the chapter, the Magistrate can be said to have taken the cognizance.
The broadly speaking, when on receiving a complaint the Magistrate applies his mind for the purposes of proceeding under Section 200 Cr.PC and the succeeding Section in Chapter XVI of Cr.PC, he said to have taken cognizance of the offence within the meaning of Section 190(1)(A), but, if instead of proceeding under Chapter XVI, the Magistrate decides, in its judicial exercise of discretion, to take action of some other kind like directing investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.PC or issuing a search warrants for the purposes of investigation, he cannot be said to have taken the cognizance of offence. (See. R R Chari. AIR 1951 SC”
From the analysis of the law on the subject, it is clear that when a Magistrate receives a complaint alleging commission of offences and he/she applies his/her judicial mind to the facts alleged in the complaint for the purpose of taking action and proceedings under Chapter XVI of the Code, he/she is stated to have cognizance of the offence, but in a case alleging commission of cognizable offences, the Magistrate has option either to proceed under Chapter XVI or to direct investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. So the determining factor is the intention of the Magistrate while dealing with the complaint alleging commission of cognizable offences.