Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter XII: Information to the Police and Their Powers to Investigate
Section 155: Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
For a non-cognizable offence, the police station officer must enter the substance of the information in the prescribed book and refer the informant to the Magistrate. Police cannot investigate a non-cognizable case without a Magistrate's order.
- Once ordered, the police have the same investigation powers as in a cognizable case, except arrest without warrant.
- A case involving at least one cognizable offence is treated as a cognizable case.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
(1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate.
(2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.
(3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case.
(4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 155
-
Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Issue arose as regards the correctness of order passed by the High Court dismissing the petition whereby the appellant sought quashing of criminal case against him that the appellant forcibly had sexual intercourse with…
-
Umashankar Yadav & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Through Chief Secretary & Anr.
Whether the High Court erred by not quashing the prosecution against the accused under ss.186 and 353 of Indian Penal Code.
-
Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
Whether the High Court erred in passing various orders granting bail to accused persons in matters involving offences of serious nature of child trafficking.
-
Madhushree Datta v. The State of Karnataka & Anr.
Issue arose as to whether, based on the materials on record, prima facie, ingredients of the offences u/ss.323, 504, 506, 509, and 511 IPC are made out; whether the chargesheet and the related criminal proceedings…
-
B.N. John v. State of U.P. & Anr.
Appellant herein has sought quashing of criminal proceedings arising under sections 353 and 186 of IPC.
- Sh. Vijay Dev Dabas v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Court on Its Own Motion v. State
- Praveen Arya v. The State of NCT of Delhi
- Atma Ram Aggarwal v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Azad Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Arvind Aggarwal v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Gurcharan Singh & Anr v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Nandini Rai v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Viral P. Sanghavi v. State of Delhi & Anr
- Kamaljeet Singh v. State NCT of Delhi
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Gangadhar Narayan Nayak @ Gangadhar Hiregutti v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
- The State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others v. Dr. Saleem Ur Rehman
- Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
- Krishna Lal Chawla & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr.
- Amish Devgan v. Union of India and Others
- Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi)
- Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others
- Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India and Ors.
- Pradeep Ram v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
- Pattu Rajan v. The State of Tamil Nadu
- Mohanlal v. The State of Punjab
- Manju Surana v. Sunil Arora & Ors.
- Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Centeral Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
- Manohar Lal Sharma v. The Principal Secretary and Ors.
- Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
- Umesh Singh v. State of Bihar
- Om Prakash & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.
- A. Subash Babu v. State of A.P.& Anr.
- Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
- Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi
- Mohd. Yousuf v. Smt. Afaq Jahan and Anr.
- State of Orissa and Anr. v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo
- Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh and Ors.
- Keshav Lal Thakur v. State of Bihar
- Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.