Cognizance of Additional Offences

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Satish Chandra Sharma in the case of Deepak Yadav and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2025) held that the Trial Courts cannot take cognizance of additional offences based solely on affidavits filed by complainant's witnesses without examining the complete investigation record or ordering fresh investigation. 

What was the Background of Deepak Yadav and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2025) Case? 

• The FIR was initially registered in 2017 under Sections 394, 452, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 
• After investigation, the Police submitted the charge sheet under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC and under Section 3(1)(D) of the 1989 Act, omitting Section 394 of the IPC. 
• The complainant filed an application before the Trial Court praying for addition of charge under Section 394 IPC, which was rejected and charges were framed under other Sections. 
• The complainant moved before the High Court, which disposed of the matter with liberty to file an application before the Trial Court for leading evidence and filing documents. 
• In the second round, the Trial Court again did not frame charge under Section 394 IPC, prompting the complainant to move the High Court again. 
• The High Court remanded the matter to the Trial Court for the second time. 
• In the third round, the Trial Court took cognizance under Section 394 IPC based on affidavits filed by the complainant's witnesses. 
• The appellants challenged this order before the High Court through an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), which was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 11.11.2024. 
• The appellants then filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

What Trial Courts Must Do: 

1. Form Independent Satisfaction: Courts must independently assess applicability of charges based on proper investigation materials, not just complainant's affidavits. 
2. Examine Complete Case Diary: Call for entire police case diary under Section 172 CrPC, including all witness statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC. 
3. Review Suppressed Materials: Examine portions not initially forwarded to court to form independent opinion on whether offence ingredients are made out. 

Fresh Investigation Protocol: 

• Police must produce entire investigation record and all witness statements. 
• If any witness statements were missed, affidavits furnished by complainant shall be forwarded to police. 
• Police to conduct further investigation and submit report within six weeks. 
• Court to then proceed with cognizance, charge framing, and trial based on complete materials. 

Legal Significance: 

This judgment reinforces that: 

• Cognizance cannot be mechanical based on private affidavits alone. 
• Prosecution must furnish complete Section 161 CrPC statements for judicial scrutiny. 
• Trial Courts must ensure fairness through proper investigation procedures. 
• Addition of charges requires independent judicial satisfaction based on investigation record. 
• Officers can face personal liability for suppressing evidence. 

What does Taking Cognizance of an Offence mean? 

About:

• The concept of "taking cognizance of an offence" is a fundamental principle in criminal law and procedure that determines when a judicial authority first becomes aware of and takes judicial notice of an alleged offence.  
• This legal framework establishes the crucial threshold that must be crossed before any criminal proceedings can be initiated. Understanding this concept is essential for practitioners of criminal law, as it serves as the foundation upon which the entire criminal justice process is built. 

Meaning of Cognizance: 

• The term "cognizance" in criminal law represents the pivotal moment when a Magistrate or Judge transitions from being unaware of an alleged crime to actively considering it within their judicial capacity.  
• This transformation is not merely administrative but carries significant legal implications for both the accused and the prosecution. 

Practical Application: 

• The practical aspects of taking cognizance were elaborated in Emperor v. Sourindra Mohan Chuckerbutty (1910): 
  • "Taking cognizance does not involve any formal action; or indeed action of any kind, but occurs as soon as a Magistrate, as such, applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence." 
• Key principles derived: 
  • No Formal Requirements: The process doesn't require specific formal actions or procedures. 
  • Mental Application: It occurs when the judicial mind is applied to the suspected offence. 
  • Statutory Compliance: When statutes prescribe specific materials for judicial consideration, those requirements must be fulfilled. 

Statutory Framework: 

Section 210 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and the corresponding Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) dealing with “cognizance of offences by Magistrates” read as follows –