A Comparative Analysis of Magisterial Powers under Section 156(3) and Section 202(1) CrPC

1. Introduction

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) equipped Magistrates with distinct powers to direct police involvement in criminal matters initiated through complaints. Two pivotal provisions in this regard are Section 156(3) and Section 202(1). While both empower a Magistrate to order or direct an investigation, they operate at fundamentally different stages of the judicial process and serve distinct objectives. Understanding the demarcation between the pre-cognizance power under Section 156(3) and the post-cognizance power under Section 202(1) is crucial for the proper administration of criminal justice. This distinction dictates the timing of the Magistrate’s intervention, the scope of the police’s authority, and the ultimate purpose of the directed action. Landmark judgments by the Supreme Court of India have played a critical role in delineating these boundaries and clarifying the procedural nuances.¹

With the advent of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which replaced the CrPC effective July 1, 2024 ³, it becomes imperative to examine the corresponding provisions – Section 175(3) and Section 225 BNSS.⁵ This report undertakes a comprehensive comparative analysis of the powers under Section 156(3) and Section 202(1) CrPC, drawing upon statutory text and judicial interpretations. It further analyzes the successor provisions in the BNSS, highlighting both continuity and change, and assesses the likely applicability of established CrPC jurisprudence to the new legal framework.

2. Magistrate’s Power under Section 156(3) CrPC: Pre-Cognizance Investigation

Statutory Provision and Scope

Section 156(3) of the CrPC provided that “Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned”.⁷ The phrase “as above-mentioned” refers to the police power to investigate cognizable cases without a Magistrate’s order, as detailed in Section 156(1) CrPC.⁸ This provision empowered a Judicial Magistrate, competent to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190 CrPC, to direct the officer-in-charge of a police station, falling within the Magistrate’s territorial jurisdiction, to investigate a cognizable offence.⁷ The power could not be exercised to direct an officer outside the Magistrate’s territorial jurisdiction, nor could it be used to direct specialized agencies like the CBI.⁷

Purpose and Trigger

The primary purpose of Section 156(3) was to provide a judicial remedy when the police failed or refused to register a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 154 CrPC despite receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence.⁷ It served as a critical tool to set the criminal law in motion ⁷ and ensure that allegations of cognizable offences did not go uninvestigated due to police inaction.⁹ The typical pathway involved an aggrieved person first approaching the police (Section 154(1)), then the Superintendent of Police (Section 154(3)) if the station house officer refused to register the FIR, and finally, if both avenues failed, approaching the Magistrate under Section 156(3).⁷ This sequential structure underscores its function as a judicial backstop against administrative inertia, ensuring access to the investigative process.

Stage of Exercise: Pre-Cognizance

A fundamental characteristic of Section 156(3) was its application strictly at the pre-cognizance stage.¹ This means the Magistrate invoked this power before taking judicial notice of the offence for the purpose of initiating proceedings under Chapter XV of the CrPC.¹⁴ Ordering an investigation under Section 156(3) was explicitly held not to constitute taking cognizance.⁷ The Magistrate, upon receiving a complaint, faced a choice: either forward it for police investigation under Section 156(3) without taking cognizance, or take cognizance and proceed under Chapter XV (starting with Section 200).⁸ If the Magistrate chose the latter path and began the procedures under Chapter XV (e.g., by examining the complainant on oath under Section 200), they could not subsequently revert to the pre-cognizance stage and order an investigation under Section 156(3).² This established a clear, irreversible procedural pathway.

Nature and Extent of Police Powers

The investigation directed by a Magistrate under Section 156(3) was identical in nature and scope to the investigation conducted by the police on their own initiative under Section 156(1).² It was a plenary investigation, encompassing the full spectrum of powers granted to the police under Chapter XII of the CrPC.¹³ This included collecting evidence, examining witnesses, conducting searches and seizures, and, where legally permissible, making arrests (subject to procedures like Section 41 CrPC).¹³ The Magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) acted as a directive, compelling the police to register an FIR (if one was not already registered based on the complaint) and undertake this comprehensive investigation.² Even if the order didn’t explicitly mention FIR registration, it was considered an inherent duty of the police upon receiving such a direction for a cognizable offence.⁸ The investigation culminated in the submission of a police report under Section 173 CrPC, which could be a chargesheet or a closure report.¹¹ The Magistrate’s role at this stage was primarily that of an initiator, activating the standard police machinery rather than supervising the investigative methodology itself.

Magistrate’s Role and Discretion

While the power under Section 156(3) was discretionary (‘may order’) ¹⁹, the Magistrate was required to exercise this discretion judicially. This involved applying their mind to the contents of the complaint or application to ascertain whether the allegations, taken at face value, prima facie disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence.¹⁰ The Magistrate was not expected to assess the truthfulness or veracity of the allegations at this preliminary stage ¹⁰ but rather to act as a filter ensuring that a cognizable offence was indeed alleged. The Magistrate was cautioned against acting mechanically, like a “mere post office”.²² If a cognizable offence was disclosed, the general expectation was for the Magistrate to order investigation.¹⁰ Judicial pronouncements, notably Priyanka Srivastava v. State of UP, suggested that applications under Section 156(3) should ideally be supported by an affidavit from the applicant, attesting to the veracity of the claims and confirming prior approaches to the police under Sections 154(1) and 154(3).⁵ This requirement of “application of mind” served as a limited judicial check even before cognizance, distinguishing the Magistrate’s role from the police’s mandatory duty to register an FIR under Section 154 upon receiving information about a cognizable offence (Lalita Kumari case).²⁰

3. Magistrate’s Power under Section 202(1) CrPC: Post-Cognizance Inquiry/Investigation

Statutory Provision and Scope

Section 202(1) of the CrPC provided that any Magistrate, upon receiving a complaint of an offence they are authorized to take cognizance of (or one made over to them under Section 192), may, if they think fit, postpone the issuance of process (summons or warrant) against the accused. During this postponement, the Magistrate could either inquire into the case themselves or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by any other person they deem fit.⁶ The explicit purpose of this inquiry or investigation was “for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding”.⁶

Purpose and Trigger

The core objective of Section 202 was to empower the Magistrate, after taking cognizance but before compelling the accused’s appearance via process, to scrutinize the complaint further.²⁴ It aimed to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the allegations to determine if there was a genuine, prima facie case justifying proceeding further.²⁴ This provision served as a crucial judicial safeguard, designed to prevent the harassment of individuals through frivolous, vexatious, or baseless complaints.²⁴ The need for such scrutiny was considered particularly important when the accused resided outside the Magistrate’s territorial jurisdiction, a situation prone to misuse of the legal process for harassment.²⁵ The power was triggered by the Magistrate’s own assessment (“if he thinks fit”) after taking cognizance and usually after examining the complainant under Section 200 CrPC.²⁴ However, following the 2005 amendment which inserted “and shall…”, the inquiry or investigation became mandatory if the accused resided beyond the Magistrate’s jurisdiction.⁶ In such mandatory inquiries, the Magistrate could not merely rely on the complaint’s allegations but had to undertake a deeper examination.²⁷

Stage of Exercise: Post-Cognizance

Section 202(1) operated exclusively at the post-cognizance stage.¹ It came into play after the Magistrate had applied their judicial mind to the complaint and taken cognizance of the offence under Section 190 CrPC, typically following the examination of the complainant (and any witnesses present) under Section 200 CrPC.¹⁵ Its specific place in the procedural flow was between the taking of cognizance/examination stage and the decision point on whether to issue process under Section 204 or dismiss the complaint under Section 203.⁹ This placement highlights its role as a deliberative pause for verification before summoning the accused.

Nature and Limitations of Inquiry/Investigation

The inquiry or investigation conducted under Section 202(1) was explicitly limited in scope and purpose.¹² Its scope was described as “extremely restricted” ²⁴, focused solely on determining if a prima facie case existed to justify issuing process.²⁴ It was not intended to be a full trial, nor did it involve a meticulous appreciation of evidence as required for conviction.²⁴

Several key limitations applied:

• Sessions-Triable Offences: Proviso (a) to Section 202(1) explicitly prohibited the Magistrate from directing an investigation (by police or anyone else) if the offence complained of appeared to be exclusively triable by the Court of Session.¹ In such serious cases, the Magistrate was instead required, under the proviso to Section 202(2), to call upon the complainant to produce all witnesses and examine them on oath.⁶ This differential treatment for grave offences indicated a legislative preference for direct Magisterial examination of evidence post-cognizance, rather than preliminary police input, paving the way for committal under Section 209 CrPC.
• Prior Examination: Proviso (b) stipulated that where the complaint was not made by a Court, no investigation could be directed unless the complainant and any witnesses present had already been examined on oath under Section 200 CrPC.⁶
• Limited Police Powers: If the Magistrate directed an investigation by the police under Section 202(1), the police role was confined to assisting the Magistrate in deciding whether to proceed.² Crucially, the Supreme Court in Ramdev Food Products definitively ruled that police officers conducting an investigation under Section 202(1) do not possess the power to arrest the accused without a warrant.²³ Their powers were limited compared to a full investigation under Chapter XII. Section 202(3) further clarified that any non-police person directed to investigate also lacked the power to arrest without a warrant.⁶ This underscores that “investigation” under Section 202 is functionally distinct from that under Section 156, lacking the coercive power of arrest and serving primarily an informational role for the Magistrate.
• Accused’s Rights: The accused person had no right to participate, intervene, or present evidence during the inquiry or investigation conducted under Section 202.²⁴ The process was solely between the complainant, their witnesses, and the Magistrate (or the directed investigator).

4. Comparative Analysis: Section 156(3) vs. Section 202(1) CrPC

The powers vested in a Magistrate under Section 156(3) and Section 202(1) of the CrPC, while both pertaining to directing investigations, were fundamentally distinct in their timing, objective, scope, and consequences.

• Timing (Cognizance): The most critical distinction lay in the stage of the proceedings. Section 156(3) was a pre-cognizance power, exercised before the Magistrate took judicial notice of the offence to initiate proceedings.¹ Conversely, Section 202(1) was a post-cognizance power, invoked after the Magistrate had taken cognizance but before issuing process to the accused.¹ This sequential separation was absolute; once a Magistrate took cognizance and proceeded under Chapter XV, the option to use Section 156(3) was closed.²
• Objective: The objective of a Section 156(3) order was to trigger a full police investigation into a cognizable offence, typically where the police had failed to act on their own, leading to a comprehensive report under Section 173 CrPC.⁹ The objective of a Section 202(1) direction, however, was much narrower: to assist the Magistrate in deciding whether sufficient grounds existed to proceed further and issue process against the accused, essentially acting as a filter.¹²
• Scope of Police Role: Under Section 156(3), the police were directed to conduct a plenary investigation using their full statutory powers under Chapter XII, including the power of arrest (subject to legal safeguards).² Under Section 202(1), if an investigation was directed, its scope was limited to gathering information to aid the Magistrate’s decision. Significantly, police lacked the power to arrest without a warrant during a Section 202(1) investigation, as clarified in the Ramdev Food Products case.²
• Triggering Mechanism: Section 156(3) was typically invoked upon an application or complaint alleging a cognizable offence, often highlighting prior police inaction.⁷ Section 202(1) was triggered by the Magistrate’s own discretion (“if he thinks fit”) after taking cognizance, or became mandatory if the accused resided outside the Magistrate’s jurisdiction.⁶
• Outcome: An investigation under Section 156(3) culminated in a police report under Section 173 CrPC (chargesheet or closure report), upon which the Magistrate would then decide whether to take cognizance and proceed. An inquiry or investigation under Section 202(1) resulted in information or a report that assisted the Magistrate in making a decision under Chapter XV: either issue process under Section 204 or dismiss the complaint under Section 203.²⁴

The following table summarizes the key distinctions:

Feature	Section 156(3) CrPC	Section 202(1) CrPC
Stage	Pre-Cognizance (Chapter XII)	Post-Cognizance, Pre-Process (Chapter XV)
Objective	Initiate full police investigation	Ascertain sufficient ground to issue process
Trigger	Complaint/Application (often post-police inaction)	Magistrate’s discretion / Mandatory (accused outside jurisdiction)
Police Powers	Full investigation powers (Chapter XII)	Limited scope; No arrest power without warrant (Ramdev)
Scope	Plenary investigation	Limited inquiry/investigation to aid Magistrate
Outcome	Police Report (S.173)	Decision on Process (S.204) or Dismissal (S.203)
Key Limitation	Magistrate’s territorial jurisdiction	Cannot direct investigation for Sessions-triable offences
FIR Registration	Usually implied/required	Not applicable (occurs post-cognizance)

Upon receiving a complaint, the Magistrate stood at a crucial procedural juncture. The initial choice—whether to bypass cognizance and order a full police investigation under Section 156(3), or to take cognizance and proceed judicially under Chapter XV (potentially involving Section 202)—fundamentally determined the subsequent course of the case and the respective roles of the police and the judiciary in its initial stages.⁸

5. Judicial Clarification: Landmark Case Law

The interpretation and application of Sections 156(3) and 202(1) CrPC have been significantly shaped by landmark rulings of the Supreme Court of India.

Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy & Ors vs V. Narayana Reddy & Ors (1976) 1:

This seminal case addressed the question of whether a Magistrate could order a Section 156(3) investigation upon receiving a complaint disclosing offences exclusively triable by the Court of Session, given the prohibition in the first proviso to Section 202(1). The Supreme Court decisively held that the power under Section 156(3) is distinct from the power under Section 202(1) and operates at the pre-cognizance stage. Since the Magistrate in the case had forwarded the complaint under Section 156(3) before taking cognizance and initiating proceedings under Chapter XV, the restrictions of Section 202(1), including its proviso regarding Sessions-triable offences, were not applicable. The Court firmly established that ordering a Section 156(3) investigation does not amount to taking cognizance. This judgment laid the foundation for understanding the separate operational spheres and timing of these two crucial sections.

Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of Gujarat (2015) 11:

This case further refined the understanding of both sections. The Magistrate had received a complaint involving alleged forgery intertwined with civil disputes and chose to direct an inquiry under Section 202 instead of a Section 156(3) investigation. The Supreme Court upheld the Magistrate’s discretion, deeming the Section 202 route appropriate for preliminary scrutiny, especially given the civil litigation background and the court’s caution against misusing criminal law for civil matters.23 The Court reiterated the pre/post-cognizance distinction and emphasized that Magistrates must apply their mind before ordering a Section 156(3) investigation.12 Most significantly, the Court addressed the extent of police powers during a Section 202(1) investigation. It definitively ruled that police officers do not have the power to arrest without a warrant when conducting an investigation directed under Section 202(1). The Court reasoned that the purpose of such investigation is limited to assisting the Magistrate, and the power of arrest, derived from other CrPC provisions like Section 41, is not automatically conferred by a Section 202 direction.23 This ruling settled a point of divergence among High Courts and clarified the restricted nature of police involvement under Section 202.

Other Relevant Precedents:

• Priyanka Srivastava v. State of UP (2015): Underscored the necessity for applicants invoking Section 156(3) to first exhaust remedies under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) CrPC (approaching police station and SP) and to support their application with a sworn affidavit.⁵
• Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP (2014): Established the mandatory duty of police to register an FIR under Section 154 CrPC if the information received discloses a cognizable offence, contrasting with the Magistrate’s discretionary power under Section 156(3).²⁰
• Mohd. Yousuf vs. Smt. Afaq Jahan (2006): Affirmed that a Magistrate ordering a Section 156(3) investigation is not taking cognizance and can explicitly direct the police to register an FIR.⁷

6. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) Framework

The CrPC, 1973, has been repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which came into force on July 1, 2024.³ While the BNSS aims to modernize criminal procedure, many provisions are pari materia (similar in substance) to their CrPC counterparts, while others introduce modifications or new concepts.³²

• Section 175(3) BNSS: This subsection, within Section 175 BNSS (titled ‘Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable case’), corresponds to Section 156(3) CrPC.⁵
• Section 225 BNSS: This section, within Chapter XVI BNSS (‘Complaints to Magistrates’), corresponds to Section 202 CrPC (titled ‘Postponement of issue of process’).⁶

7. Analysis of Magistrate’s Powers under BNSS

The transition from CrPC to BNSS brings both continuity and significant changes to the magisterial powers previously governed by Sections 156(3) and 202(1).

Key Changes in Section 175(3) BNSS (vs. 156(3) CrPC)

Section 175(3) BNSS introduces several procedural safeguards and requirements not explicitly present in Section 156(3) CrPC:

1. Mandatory Prior Application to SP: It is now a statutory requirement under Section 175(3) BNSS that before approaching the Magistrate, the applicant must have first applied to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS following the refusal by the officer-in-charge of the police station to register the FIR. The applicant must furnish a copy of this application (supported by an affidavit) to the Magistrate.⁵ This codifies the guideline laid down in Priyanka Srivastava.
2. Magistrate’s Inquiry Power: The BNSS explicitly empowers the Magistrate under Section 175(3) to “conduct such enquiry as he deems necessary” before directing the registration of an FIR or investigation.⁵ This provides the Magistrate with an additional tool for preliminary assessment.
3. Consideration of Police Submissions: A significant addition is the mandate that the Magistrate must consider the submissions made by the concerned police officer regarding the reasons for refusal to register the FIR before issuing any direction under Section 175(3).⁵ This necessitates weighing the police perspective, adding a layer of scrutiny.

These changes collectively suggest a legislative intent to make the process under Section 175(3) BNSS more rigorous, imposing greater judicial scrutiny and demanding higher police accountability at the pre-cognizance stage compared to its CrPC predecessor. Accessing this remedy may become more structured and potentially more demanding for the complainant.

Comparison: Section 225 BNSS and Section 202 CrPC

Section 225 BNSS, which deals with the postponement of process, largely mirrors Section 202 CrPC in its structure, language, and core functionalities ⁶:

• Core Function: It retains the mechanism for a Magistrate, after receiving a complaint (post-cognizance stage implied by context, though potentially complicated by S.223 BNSS), to postpone issuing process and either inquire themselves or direct a limited investigation to ascertain if sufficient grounds exist to proceed.⁶
• Mandatory Inquiry: The mandatory requirement (“shall”) to conduct such inquiry or investigation when the accused resides outside the Magistrate’s jurisdiction is preserved.⁶
• Limitations: The provisos restricting the direction of investigation for offences exclusively triable by the Court of Session (Proviso (a)) and requiring prior examination under Section 223 BNSS (equivalent to S.200 CrPC) if the complaint is not by a Court (Proviso (b)) are carried over.⁶
• Investigator’s Powers: Section 225(3) BNSS retains the limitation on the powers of a non-police investigator (no arrest without warrant).⁶ Given the pari materia nature, the principle established in Ramdev—that police also lack arrest power without warrant during such directed investigation—is highly likely to apply to Section 225 BNSS.

The substantial similarity indicates a legislative intent to maintain the established post-cognizance filtering mechanism designed to prevent harassment and ensure a prima facie basis before summoning an accused.²⁴

However, a potential point of friction arises from Section 223 BNSS (corresponding to S.200 CrPC), which deals with the examination of the complainant. A new proviso added to Section 223 BNSS suggests that the accused must be given an opportunity of being heard before cognizance is taken in complaint cases.³⁷ This introduces ambiguity regarding the precise operational stage of Section 225 BNSS. Traditionally, Section 202 CrPC operated post-cognizance but pre-accused involvement (via process). If under BNSS, cognizance itself is potentially delayed until after hearing the accused (under S.223), the exact timing and utility of Section 225 (which allows postponement of process after the Magistrate is “authorised to take cognizance”) requires judicial clarification. Does it operate after the S.223 hearing but before formal process, or does it retain its traditional role, creating a procedural tension with the new S.223 proviso?

8. Continuity and Change: Applicability of CrPC Precedents to BNSS

The transition to BNSS raises questions about the continued relevance of jurisprudence developed under the CrPC.

• General Principle: As a rule, binding precedents established under CrPC provisions that are pari materia (substantially similar in wording and purpose) to provisions in the BNSS are expected to continue to apply and hold legal authority.³²
• Application to Section 175(3) BNSS: While Section 175(3) BNSS corresponds to Section 156(3) CrPC, the significant statutory changes (mandatory SP application, inquiry power, consideration of police submissions) mean that CrPC precedents must be applied with caution.⁵ Core principles like the pre-cognizance nature and the need for judicial application of mind likely persist. However, the new mandatory requirements introduce elements not addressed by older case law, necessitating the development of fresh jurisprudence specific to these additions.⁵
• Application to Section 225 BNSS: Given the high degree of similarity between Section 225 BNSS and Section 202 CrPC ⁶, the extensive body of case law interpreting Section 202 CrPC is expected to remain largely applicable.³² This includes rulings on its limited scope, its purpose in preventing harassment, the mandatory nature of inquiry for accused residing outside jurisdiction, and, crucially, the Ramdev principle regarding the absence of police arrest power without warrant during such investigations. However, the potential ambiguity arising from the interplay with the new proviso in Section 223 BNSS might require judicial clarification regarding the precise stage at which Section 225 now operates.

It is also important to note that some changes in BNSS might implicitly challenge or require re-evaluation of established CrPC case law (e.g., the potential impact of preliminary inquiry provisions on the Lalita Kumari principles, as noted in some analyses ³⁷). The definitive interpretation of new and modified BNSS provisions will ultimately emerge through future rulings by the High Courts and the Supreme Court.³²

9. Conclusion

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provided Magistrates with two distinct avenues for directing police involvement following a complaint: Section 156(3) and Section 202(1). As clarified by landmark judgments like Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy and Ramdev Food Products, Section 156(3) served as a pre-cognizance tool to compel a full police investigation when initial police action was lacking, while Section 202(1) functioned as a post-cognizance, pre-process mechanism for limited inquiry or investigation to help the Magistrate decide whether sufficient grounds existed to proceed against the accused, notably without conferring powers of arrest without warrant on the police during this limited probe.

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, largely carries forward these distinct functions through Sections 175(3) and 225, respectively. However, Section 175(3) BNSS introduces significant procedural safeguards, codifying requirements like prior application to the Superintendent of Police and mandating Magistrates to consider police submissions before ordering investigation, reflecting an emphasis on enhanced scrutiny and accountability at the pre-cognizance stage. In contrast, Section 225 BNSS maintains substantial continuity with Section 202 CrPC, preserving the established mechanism for post-cognizance filtering, suggesting that the extensive jurisprudence developed under Section 202 CrPC will likely remain relevant.

The applicability of CrPC precedents to the BNSS will generally hold for pari materia provisions like Section 225, though caution is warranted for significantly modified sections like 175(3). Emerging ambiguities, such as the potential procedural tension between the new pre-cognizance hearing for the accused under Section 223 BNSS and the traditional post-cognizance role of Section 225 BNSS, will require judicial interpretation. Nonetheless, the fundamental distinction between ordering a full pre-cognizance investigation and directing a limited post-cognizance inquiry remains a cornerstone of criminal procedure under the new Sanhita, reflecting the enduring importance of these distinct magisterial powers in balancing access to justice with safeguards against procedural abuse.

Works cited

1. Distinction Between Sections 156(3) and 202(1) CPC: Insights from Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy – CaseMine, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/distinction-between-sections-156(3)-and-202(1)-cpc:-insights-from-devarapalli-lakshminarayana-reddy-v.-v.-narayana-reddy/view
2. case-law-where-magistrate-ordered-investigation-under-sec-156(3)crpc-in-cognizable-offences – Supreme Today AI, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://supremetoday.ai/issue/case-law-where-magistrate-ordered-investigation-under-sec-156(3)crpc-in-cognizable-offences
3. Nishith Desai Associates Navigating Through Criminal Law Reforms: Part II – Review of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, replacing the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://www.nishithdesai.com/NewsDetails/14897
4. on New Criminal Laws -..: BPR&D :.., accessed on April 20, 2025, https://bprd.nic.in/uploads/pdf/1725273999_10c3ed6ede64b4c3cf6b.pdf
5. Section 175(3) BNSS, Unlike Section 156(3) CrPC, Requires …, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/section-175-3-bnss-magistrate-investigation-2025-insc-139-om-prakash-ambadkar-v-state-of-maharashtra-1566698
6. Advocate on Record Supreme Court of India – Section-225 BNSS – Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 & equivalent Cr.P.C. Section – AOR Prashant Kanha, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://www.prashantkanha.com/section-225-bnss-bhartiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita-2023-equivalent-cr-p-c-section/
7. POWER OF MAGISTRATE TO DIRECT INVESTIGATION – Patna High Court, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/bja/PDF/UPLOADED/BJA/BLOGSJUDGMENT/1.PDF
8. COGNIZANCE BY MAGISTRATE – A BRIEF NOTE ON SECTION 156(3) CR.P.C. INCLUDING AN OVERVIEW OF SECTION 190 AND 200 OF THE CR.P.C. – Siddharth Jain & Co., accessed on April 20, 2025, https://sjcolegal.com/scope-of-section-1563-cr-p-c-read-with-section-190-and-200-of-the-cr-p-c/
9. Section 156(3) CrPC – A Comprehensive Analysis of the Pillar to Post Provision, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://www.ilms.academy/blog/section-156-3-crpc-a-comprehensive-analysis-of-the-pillar-to-post-provision
10. REGISTRATION OF FIR u/s 156(3) CrPC – Law Helpline, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://lawhelpline.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Sec._1563.pdf
11. distinction between the provisions contained in Section 156(3) and Section 202(1) of Cr.PC, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://anticorruptionteam.org/hesk/knowledgebase.php?article=1976
12. Section 156 CrPC – iPleaders, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://blog.ipleaders.in/section-156-crpc/
13. Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure: Investigation not cognizance, Supreme Court clarifies – numen law offices, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://numenlaw.com/section-156-3-of-code-of-criminal-procedure-investigation-not-cognizance-supreme-court-clarifies.php
14. COGNIZANCE – A BIRD’S EYE VIEW – Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://www.tnsja.tn.gov.in/article/Cognizance%20birds%20eye%20RRJ.pdf
15. Devarapalll Lakshminarayana Reddy & … vs V.Narayana Reddy …, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/412326/
16. Supreme Court Clarifies Magistrate’s Discretion under CrPC 1973: Devarapalli Reddy Case Analysis – CaseMine, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/supreme-court-clarifies-magistrate’s-discretion-under-crpc-1973:-devarapalli-reddy-case-analysis/view
17. S 156(3) CrPC – Ordering Further Investigation At Post Cognizance Stage – CiteCase, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://citecase.in/s-1563-crpc-ordering-further-investigation-at-post-cognizance-stage/
18. Cognizance: Difference between sections 156(2) & 202 Cr.P.C and procedure to summon the accused – The Criminal Law School, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://section1.in/cognizance-difference-ss-1562-202-cr-p-c-and-procedure-to-summon-accused/
19. Section 156 (3) of CrPC v. Section 175 (3) of BNSS – Drishti Judiciary, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-affairs/section-156-3-of-crpc-v-section-175-3-of-bnss
20. Preliminary Inquiry under Section 156(3) of CrPC – Drishti Judiciary, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-affairs/preliminary-inquiry-under-section-156-3-of-crpc
21. Three Judges of the Supreme Court on Sections 156(3) and 202 Cr.P.C. – The Proof of Guilt, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://theproofofguilt.blogspot.com/2015/03/three-judges-of-supreme-court-on.html
22. Supreme Court’s Interpretation of Section 156(3) CrPC and BNSS Section 175(3): Judicial Approach and Accountability – Court Book, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://courtbook.in/posts/supreme-courts-interpretation-of-section-1563-crpc-and-bnss-section-1753-judicial-approach-and-accountability
23. Supreme Court Expands Guidelines on Police Powers under Section 202 CrPC: Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat – CaseMine, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/supreme-court-expands-guidelines-on-police-powers-under-section-202-crpc:-ramdev-food-products-pvt.-ltd.-v.-state-of-gujarat/view
24. ujala.uk.gov.in, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://ujala.uk.gov.in/files/Inquiry_and_Inspection_Under_Section_202_CrPC_By_Ravi_Shankar_Mishra.pdf
25. ujala.uk.gov.in, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://ujala.uk.gov.in/files/Inquiry_and_Investigation_Under_Section_202_of_CrPC_by_Dayaram.pdf
26. Procedure Under Section 202(1) of CrPC is Mandatory – Drishti Judiciary, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-affairs/procedure-under-section-202-1-of-crpc-is-mandatory
27. Section 202 of CrPC – Drishti Judiciary, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-affairs/section-202-of-crpc
28. Ramdev Food Products Private Limited vs State Of Gujarat on 16 …, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/34445368/
29. Concept of cognizance under criminal law, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://www.lawjournals.org/assets/archives/2019/vol5issue5/5-2-42-629.pdf
30. Digest on court judgement during June to August 2015 – CID Crime Branch Odisha Police, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://odishapolicecidcb.gov.in/sites/default/files/digest%20on%20court%20judgement%20June%20to%20August%2020150001.pdf
31. Ramdev Food Products Pvt.Ltd v. State Of Gujarat | Gujarat High Court – CaseMine, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/575fd36f607dba63d7e6fa29
32. Relevant Rulings Under BNSS The binding precedents in cases decided under Cr.P.C, to the extent of pari materia provisions in B. – S3waas, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3d0921d442ee91b896ad95059d13df618/uploads/2024/10/202503132071465822.pdf
33. Supreme Court Rules Section 175(3) BNSS Requires Magistrate To Review Police Submissions Before Ordering Investigation, Unlike Section 156(3) CrPC – LawChakra, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://lawchakra.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-section-1753-bnss/
34. Sanction Under Section 197 Crpc & BNSS : ‘Officials Cannot Use Their Position As A Cloak For Unlawful Gains’ – LawChakra, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://lawchakra.in/blog/sanction-under-section-197-crpc-bnss/
35. CORRESPONDENCE TABLE and COMPARISON SUMMARY of The BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023, (BNSS) and The CODE OF CRIMINAL PRO, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://bprd.nic.in/uploads/pdf/Comparison%20summary%20BNSS%20to%20CrPC.pdf
36. BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 (ACT NO. 46 OF 2023) CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 ANHITA%2C%202023.pdf
37. An Exhaustive Comparative Analysis of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Bar and Bench, accessed on April 20, 2025, https://www.barandbench.com/columns/comparative-analysis-of-code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-and-bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita-2023