Cognizance, dismissal of complaints, commencement of proceedings and limitation

1. Meaning of cognizance

The Sanhita does not define cognizance. In R.R. Chari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1951 INSC 20, AIR 1951 SC 207, the Court explained that a Magistrate takes cognizance when he applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence for the purpose of proceeding under the provisions that follow, not when he applies his mind for some other purpose, such as ordering investigation or issuing a search warrant. Cognizance is taken of the offence, not of the offender.

2. Cognizance by Magistrates: section 210 (old s.190)

Any Magistrate of the first class, and a Magistrate of the second class specially empowered by the CJM, may take cognizance of an offence:

• (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts constituting the offence, including a complaint by a person authorised under a special law;
• (b) upon a police report of such facts, submitted in any mode including electronic mode;
• (c) upon information from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge.

Where cognizance is taken under clause (c), the accused must be told before evidence is taken that he may have the case tried by another Magistrate, and if he objects the CJM transfers it (s.211). The CJM may make over a case after cognizance to a subordinate Magistrate (s.212).

Court of Session (s.213, old s.193): it does not take cognizance as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case is committed to it, except where the Sanhita or another law provides otherwise (for example, s.222(2), defamation of high functionaries on a complaint by the Public Prosecutor).

3. Bars on cognizance

• Contempt of lawful authority, offences against public justice and offences relating to documents in evidence (s.215, old s.195): complaint by the public servant or court concerned.
• Offences against the State and criminal conspiracy (s.217, old s.196): sanction of the Central or State Government (or, for some offences, the District Magistrate).
• Judges and public servants (s.218, old s.197): previous sanction for offences committed while acting or purporting to act in official duty. New: the Government must decide within 120 days, failing which sanction is deemed granted; no sanction is needed for specified sexual offences and offences under BNS ss.143, 199 and 200. Armed Forces need Central sanction (s.218(2)).
• Offences against marriage (s.219, old s.198): complaint by the person aggrieved; cruelty by husband or relatives (BNS s.85) on a police report or complaint by the woman or specified relatives (s.220).
• Defamation (s.222, old s.199): complaint by the person aggrieved.

4. Complaint cases: examination and the new hearing (ss.223–226)

• Examination of complainant (s.223, old s.200): the Magistrate examines the complainant and witnesses present on oath, reduces it to writing and signs. Not needed where a public servant or court has complained in writing, or the case is made over under s.212.
• Hearing the accused before cognizance (first proviso to s.223(1), new): no cognizance on a complaint shall be taken “without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard”. This has no equivalent in the CrPC.
• Complaint against a public servant (s.223(2), new): cognizance only after he is allowed to state his version and a report is received from his superior officer.
• Incompetent Magistrate (s.224): returns the complaint for presentation to the proper court.
• Postponement of process (s.225, old s.202): the Magistrate may inquire himself or direct investigation by police or another person, and shall do so where the accused resides outside his jurisdiction. No investigation may be directed where the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session; in such a case he must call on the complainant to produce all his witnesses.

5. Dismissal of complaint: section 226 (old s.203)

If, after considering the statements on oath and the result of any inquiry or investigation under s.225, the Magistrate finds no sufficient ground for proceeding, he dismisses the complaint and briefly records his reasons. The test is whether a prima facie case is made out, not whether the evidence is enough to convict. Other grounds of dismissal: non-payment of process fees within a reasonable time (s.227(4)). Dismissal is not an acquittal (Explanation to s.337), so a second complaint on the same facts is not barred by double jeopardy; but in Pramatha Nath Taluqdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, 1961 INSC 357, AIR 1962 SC 876, the Court held that a second complaint will be entertained only in exceptional circumstances: where the first order was manifestly perverse or unjust, was passed on an incomplete record or a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint, or where new facts emerge that could not with reasonable diligence have been brought earlier. The remedy against dismissal is revision.

6. Commencement of proceedings: sections 227–233 (old ss.204–209)

• Issue of process (s.227): if there is sufficient ground, summons in a summons-case; warrant or summons in a warrant-case. Process may be issued through electronic means. No process until a list of prosecution witnesses is filed; in a complaint case a copy of the complaint goes with it. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, 1997 INSC 714, (1998) 5 SCC 749, the Court held that summoning an accused is a serious matter and the order must show that the Magistrate applied his mind to the facts and the law.
• Dispensing with attendance (s.228): the accused may appear by advocate.
• Petty offences (s.229): offences punishable only with fine up to five thousand rupees; the accused may plead guilty by post or through an advocate and remit the fine.
• Supply of copies (s.230): in a police-report case the Magistrate must furnish free copies of the police report, FIR, statements under ss.180 and 183 and documents to the accused, and to the victim if represented by an advocate, within fourteen days of production or appearance. Electronic supply is valid. In sessions-triable complaint cases, s.231.
• Commitment (s.232): where the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the Magistrate commits the case. Proceedings must be completed within ninety days of cognizance, extendable to 180 days for recorded reasons.
• Complaint case and police investigation on the same facts (s.233): the complaint case is stayed and, if cognizance is taken on the police report, both are tried together as a police case.

7. Timelines in this part of the Sanhita

• Sanction for public servant: 120 days, then deemed (s.218).
• Copies to accused and victim: 14 days (s.230).
• Commitment: 90 days from cognizance, up to 180 (s.232).
• Discharge application: 60 days; charge within 60 days of first hearing on charge (ss.250, 251, 262, 263).
• Judgment: 30 days from arguments, up to 45 (s.258); pronouncement in other courts under s.392.

8. Limitation for taking cognizance: sections 513–519 (old ss.467–473)

No court shall take cognizance after the period of limitation (s.514):

• six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;
• one year, if punishable with imprisonment up to one year;
• three years, if punishable with imprisonment over one year and up to three years.

No limitation applies to offences punishable with more than three years. Where offences are tried together, the most severe decides the period. The new Explanation to s.514 fixes the relevant date as the date of filing the complaint under s.223 or of recording information under s.173. This codifies Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases, 2013 INSC 784, (2014) 2 SCC 62, where a Constitution Bench held that the date of filing the complaint or instituting the prosecution, not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is what counts.

• Commencement (s.515): the date of the offence; or, if unknown, the date it first comes to the knowledge of the aggrieved person or police; or, if the offender is unknown, the date his identity becomes known.
• Exclusions (s.516): time spent in good-faith prosecution in a court without jurisdiction; stay orders; notice or sanction periods; the offender's absence from India or absconding.
• Court closed (s.517) and continuing offences (s.518: a fresh period runs at every moment the offence continues).
• Extension (s.519): the court may take cognizance after the period if the delay is properly explained or it is necessary in the interests of justice.

9. Problem

‘A’ wants to file a case against ‘B’ for an offence punishable with fine only. The offence was committed a year ago. Advise A. (February 2025.)

Issue. Whether a court can take cognizance of a fine-only offence a year after its commission.

Law. Section 514(2)(a) BNSS fixes six months for offences punishable with fine only, counted from the date of the offence or the date of knowledge under s.515, with exclusions under s.516. Section 519 allows cognizance after the period if the delay is properly explained or the interests of justice require it.

Application. One year has passed, so the six-month period has expired unless A can show that he learnt of the offence or of B's identity within the last six months (s.515), or that time is to be excluded, for example because B was abroad or absconding, or A was prosecuting in good faith in a wrong court (s.516). Failing that, A must file an application for condonation explaining the delay, and the Magistrate may take cognizance under s.519.

Conclusion. Ordinarily the complaint is time-barred. A should file it with an application under s.519 stating the reasons for the delay. If the reasons are satisfactory, cognizance can still be taken.

How this is examined

The cognizance question is answered with s.210 and R.R. Chari, the bars in ss.215–222, the new hearing under s.223, and then the timeline list in section 7. “Commencement of proceedings before Magistrate” is ss.227–233. Dismissal of complaints is a short note built on s.226 and Pramatha Nath Taluqdar. Limitation appears as a problem; work it through ss.514, 515, 516 and 519.