Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter XV: Complaints to Magistrates
Section 201: Procedure by Magistrate not competent to take cognizance of the case
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024.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
If a complaint is made to a Magistrate not competent to take cognizance, they must return a written complaint with an endorsement for presentation to the proper court, or direct an oral complainant to the proper court.
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
If the complaint is made to a Magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance of the offence, he shall,—
(a) if the complaint is in writing, return it for presentation to the proper Court with an endorsement to that effect;
(b) if the complaint is not in writing, direct the complainant to the proper Court.
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 201
-
Gurdeep Singh v. The State of Punjab
Issue arose whether the order of conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences u/ss.307, 353, 332, 225, 186, and 120B IPC and s.25 of the Arms Act, 1959 by the courts below was legally sustainable.
-
Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar and Others
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court whereby it set aside the order of the trial court summoning respondents as additional accused for facing trial along with the principal accused.
-
M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
Issue arose whether a complaint filed u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, can be ordered to be transferred from one court to the other having territorial jurisdiction to try the offence in exercise of powers…
-
Om Prakash Yadav v. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay & Ors.
Issue arose as regards whether in the absence of the grant of sanction for prosecution u/s.197 CrPC, the CJM, Firozabad could have taken cognizance of the charge sheets against the respondents; and whether the offence…
- Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. The State of Uttar
- Swararaj @ Raj Shrikant Thackeray v. State & Ors
- Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement
- R. N. Agarwal v. R. C. Bansal & Ors.
- Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.
- Devendra Kishanlal Dagalia v. Dwarkesh Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
- Ajoy Kumar Ghose v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
- H.V. Jayaram v. The Industrial Credit and Investment Corpn. of India Ltd. and Ors. Etc.