Non-cognizable offence and complaint treatment: police report could support cognizance where it disclosed the alleged Delhi Police Act offence.

An offence under Section 97 of the Delhi Police Act was held to be non-cognizable because it carried only a fine with limited default imprisonment and the statute permitted arrest only in specified circumstances. That restricted arrest power did not alter the offence's cognizable character. A police report prepared after investigation without prior Magistrate's order, though not a valid basis for regular investigation of a non-cognizable case, could still be treated as a complaint if it disclosed the offence. On that basis, cognizance under the Code was competent and the challenge to the criminal proceedings failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an offence punishable under Section 97 of the Delhi Police Act was cognizable or non-cognizable. (ii) Whether a police report prepared after investigation of such offence without prior Magistrate's order could be treated as a complaint enabling cognizance under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issue (i): Whether an offence punishable under Section 97 of the Delhi Police Act was cognizable or non-cognizable.

Analysis: The offence carried only a fine, with a short default sentence, and the power of arrest under Section 59 of the Delhi Police Act was limited to situations where the offence was committed in the presence of the police officer. A restricted power of arrest in specified circumstances did not make the offence cognizable within the meaning of the Code. The statutory scheme and the classification in the First Schedule supported the view that the offence remained non-cognizable.

Conclusion: The offence under Section 97 of the Delhi Police Act was non-cognizable.

Issue (ii): Whether a police report prepared after investigation of such offence without prior Magistrate's order could be treated as a complaint enabling cognizance under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: For a non-cognizable offence, investigation without the Magistrate's order was not authorized, but the defect in investigation did not by itself bar cognizance. Under the definition of complaint, read with the Explanation deeming a police officer's report in a non-cognizable case to be a complaint, the report could be treated as a complaint where it disclosed the commission of such an offence. Since a report under Section 173(2) of the Code was not involved, the Magistrate could proceed under Section 190(1)(a) on the basis of that report. The label given by the police was not decisive.

Conclusion: The kalendra could be treated as a complaint and cognizance was competent on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were unsustainable on the objection that the police report could not found cognizance, and the petition succeeded with quashing of the further criminal proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A police report concerning a non-cognizable offence investigated without prior Magistrate authorization may be treated as a complaint if it discloses the commission of that offence, and a restricted power of arrest in specified circumstances does not convert such an offence into a cognizable one.

---