Non-cognizable offence investigation requires Magistrate approval; unauthorized police report cannot sustain cognizance and the proceeding is quashed.

A non-cognizable offence under section 31 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 could not be investigated by police under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 without a Magistrate's order under section 155(2). The proviso to section 2(d) did not apply because it covers cases where a cognizable case later discloses only a non-cognizable offence. Since the investigation was without jurisdiction, the report prepared on its basis could not validly sustain cognizance, and the proceeding was quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the police could investigate a non-cognizable offence under section 31 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 without an order of a Magistrate; (ii) Whether cognizance could be taken on the report submitted after such investigation.

Issue (i): Whether the police could investigate a non-cognizable offence under section 31 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 without an order of a Magistrate.

Analysis: The offence alleged was expressly non-cognizable. In that situation, the police had no authority to register a case and investigate under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Investigation of a non-cognizable offence was permissible only under an order of a competent Magistrate under section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and no such order had been passed. The proviso to section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, treating a police report in certain circumstances as a complaint, did not assist the prosecution because that situation applies where investigation begins in a cognizable case and later discloses only a non-cognizable offence.

Conclusion: The police had no authority to investigate the offence in the absence of a Magistrate's order.

Issue (ii): Whether cognizance could be taken on the report submitted after such investigation.

Analysis: Since the investigation itself was without jurisdiction, the report submitted on its completion could not validly found cognizance. The challenge to cognizance became unnecessary to examine on limitation, because the proceeding was already vitiated at the threshold. The result was that the impugned proceeding could not stand.

Conclusion: Cognizance on the report was impermissible and the proceeding was liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding was quashed because the police had no power to investigate the non-cognizable offence without prior Magistrate authorization, and the resulting report could not support cognizance.

Ratio Decidendi: A non-cognizable offence cannot be investigated by police without an order under section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and a report stemming from such unauthorized investigation cannot validly sustain cognizance.

---