TL;DR: Whether an offence is cognizable or non-cognizable decides almost everything that happens next at a police station. For a cognizable offence (defined in Section 2(1)(g) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the police must register an FIR under Section 173 BNSS, can investigate on their own, and can arrest without a warrant. For a non-cognizable offence (Section 2(1)(o) BNSS), the police record the information in a community service register, point you toward a Magistrate, and cannot investigate or arrest without the Magistrate’s order under Section 174 BNSS. The classification for each offence sits in the First Schedule to the BNSS. The Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. settled that FIR registration is mandatory once a cognizable offence is disclosed. Do not confuse this split with the bailable and non-bailable split; they are separate columns and they do not always line up.

On this page

The core difference in one minute

Walk into any police station in India with a grievance, and the first thing that happens behind the desk is a quiet sorting exercise. The duty officer is deciding which of two boxes your complaint falls into. That decision, made in seconds, shapes the rest of your case.

Box one is the cognizable offence. The word comes from “cognizance”, meaning the police can take notice and act on their own. Murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, serious theft. For these, the officer is bound to register a First Information Report, the police can start digging into the facts straight away, and they can arrest the suspect without first running to a Magistrate for a warrant.

Box two is the non-cognizable offence. Here the police cannot act on their own steam. They will write down what you say, but they cannot register a proper FIR, cannot launch an investigation, and cannot arrest anyone unless a Magistrate first says yes. Simple hurt, defamation, public nuisance, and many everyday disputes live in this box.

So the real difference is not about how angry you are or how much you have lost. It is about how much independent power the state hands to the police the moment your complaint lands. Cognizable means the police can move first and explain later. Non-cognizable means the court goes first and the police follow.

Everything else in this guide is a consequence of that single split. If you understand which box your case sits in, you will already know whether you should expect an FIR, whether an arrest can happen tonight, and who is really in charge of the investigation.

Why does the law draw the line here at all? The reasoning is about proportionality of state power. Some crimes are so grave, or so likely to spread, that requiring the police to first obtain a court’s blessing would simply let the offender escape, destroy evidence, or harm someone else in the meantime. For those, the law trusts the police to move on their own and answer for it afterwards. Other matters are minor, private, or easily exaggerated in the heat of a quarrel. Letting the police arrest and investigate on the strength of every such complaint would hand them enormous, easily abused power over ordinary disputes. So the law puts a judicial check in front of those cases. The cognizable and non-cognizable split is, at bottom, a calibrated answer to one question: how much should we trust the police to act before a judge has looked at the matter?

How BNSS defines the two categories

Since 1 July 2024, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) has been replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The two categories survived the change, but the section numbers moved, so it pays to get them exactly right.

Under the BNSS, a cognizable offence is defined in Section 2(1)(g). The definition is functional rather than descriptive. It tells you that a cognizable offence is one for which a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law in force, arrest without a warrant. In other words, the statute does not list the crimes. It points you to a table (the First Schedule) and to the power of arrest. If the table marks an offence as one where arrest without warrant is allowed, it is cognizable.

A non-cognizable offence is defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the BNSS. It is, simply, an offence for which a police officer has no authority to arrest without a warrant. The mirror image of the first definition.

For practitioners moving over from the old code, here is the cross-reference:

  • CrPC Section 2(c) defined cognizable offence. Now it is BNSS Section 2(1)(g).
  • CrPC Section 2(l) defined non-cognizable offence. Now it is BNSS Section 2(1)(o).

The substance has not changed. The Vakilsearch breakdown of the BNSS definitions and the MyJudix explainer on the same provisions both confirm that the dividing line stays exactly where it was, namely the power to arrest without a warrant.

One word of caution. You will still see writers cite “Section 2(g)” or “Section 2(o)” without the “(1)”. The BNSS uses a numbered sub-section structure, so the precise references are 2(1)(g) and 2(1)(o). When you are drafting, use the full citation. A returned filing over a sloppy section number is an avoidable embarrassment.

If you want the wider picture of how the three new codes (BNS, BNSS, and BSA) renumbered the old law, our primer on the new criminal laws maps the major shifts.

How to tell which one your case is

The definitions are circular by design. Section 2(1)(g) sends you to the First Schedule, and the First Schedule is where the answer actually lives.

The First Schedule to the BNSS is a long table that lists offences and then sets out, in separate columns, four things for each one: whether it is cognizable or non-cognizable, whether it is bailable or non-bailable, the punishment, and which court can try it. So to classify any offence, you find the relevant section of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) or the special law, look it up in the table, and read across.

There is a practical shortcut that holds true most of the time, though it is not a rule of law. The First Schedule has a default rule for offences under other laws. If a special statute is silent and the offence carries imprisonment of three years or more, it tends to be treated as cognizable. If it carries less than three years or only a fine, it tends to be treated as non-cognizable. Use this as a rough sense check, not as a substitute for reading the actual entry.

Do not try to classify by gut feeling about seriousness. The schedule throws up surprises. As Sheokand Legal points out, rioting is cognizable but bailable, which feels counterintuitive until you remember that cognizability and bailability are two independent questions. A crime can be serious enough that the police should act on their own (cognizable) while still being one where the accused has a right to bail (bailable).

So the honest answer to “which box is my case in” is: open the First Schedule, find the exact section, and read the cognizability column. Anything else is guessing. This is precisely the kind of lookup where a good legal research tool earns its keep, because the schedule is large and a wrong reading at the start contaminates everything downstream.

FIR for cognizable, NCR for non-cognizable

This is where the difference becomes real for an ordinary complainant. The paperwork at the desk is not the same for the two categories, and the difference is not cosmetic.

For a cognizable offence, the police register a First Information Report under Section 173 of the BNSS (the successor to CrPC Section 154). The officer in charge must reduce the information to writing, read it back to you, and have you sign it. A copy must be given to you free of cost, immediately. Once the FIR is registered, the criminal law machinery starts moving on its own. The police can begin investigating without asking anyone’s permission.

BNSS Section 173 also brought two welcome modernisations. First, zero FIR now has statutory backing. You can register an FIR at any police station regardless of where the offence happened, and it is later transferred to the station with jurisdiction. Second, electronic FIR is recognised, so information can be sent by electronic communication and then taken on record, with the rule that it must be signed within three days. The Finology explainer on zero FIR and e-FIR walks through both features, and the Drishti note on Section 173 confirms the three-day signing rule.

There is one important exception built into Section 173 that did not exist in the old code. For a cognizable offence punishable with three years or more but less than seven years, Section 173(3) allows the officer in charge, with the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, to first conduct a preliminary enquiry within fourteen days to see whether a prima facie case exists, instead of registering an FIR straight away. The LawSikho comparison of Section 173 and Section 154 explains why this carve-out has worried many practitioners, because it reopens a door that Lalita Kumari had largely shut.

For a non-cognizable offence, there is no FIR. Under Section 174 of the BNSS (the successor to CrPC Section 155), the officer enters the substance of the information in the prescribed book, often called the Non-Cognizable Report or NCR, refers the informant to the Magistrate, and stops there. The NCR is just a record. It does not trigger an investigation and it does not give the police any power to act. To move forward, the complainant must approach the Magistrate. The Legal Quotient note on Section 174 sets out exactly what the police can and cannot do at this stage.

So the simplest tell at the front desk is this. If you walk out with an FIR copy in your hand, your case is cognizable. If you walk out being told to “go to the court”, your case is non-cognizable.

It is worth dwelling on why the free copy matters so much. The FIR is the first version of events to enter the record, and it is the document every later stage measures against. If the investigating officer twists facts, the court can compare the charge-sheet to the FIR. If the accused alleges the case is fabricated, the FIR’s timing and contents become central. Because so much hangs on it, the BNSS makes the copy a right rather than a favour, and Section 173 spells out that it is given free of cost. A complainant who leaves without that copy, trusting the officer’s word that “it is registered”, is giving up the one piece of paper that proves the machinery has actually started. Insist on it, and read it before you sign.

The NCR sits at the opposite end of this spectrum. It is a record that something was reported, nothing more. It does not bind the police to do anything, it does not start a clock, and it confers no power. Many complainants misread the NCR as a weaker FIR that will eventually do the same work. It will not. The NCR is a starting gun that fires into the air. To make anything happen, you still have to physically carry the matter to a Magistrate.

Power of police to arrest

The power to arrest tracks the cognizable and non-cognizable split, but the BNSS has tightened the rules in a way that every complainant and every accused should understand.

The basic power sits in Section 35 of the BNSS. A police officer may arrest without a Magistrate’s order and without a warrant where a person commits a cognizable offence in the officer’s presence, or where credible information exists that the person has committed a cognizable offence. The Drishti note on Section 35 lists the full set of situations, which also includes proclaimed offenders and persons found with suspected stolen property.

But the BNSS does not treat all cognizable offences alike when it comes to arrest. There are two tiers.

For a cognizable offence punishable with more than seven years (or death), arrest without warrant is broadly available on credible information. These are the gravest crimes, and the law gives the police room to act fast.

For a cognizable offence punishable with up to seven years, Section 35 imposes a filter. The officer must have reason to believe the person committed the offence, and must additionally be satisfied that the arrest is necessary for a specific listed purpose: to prevent a further offence, for proper investigation, to stop evidence from being tampered with, to stop witnesses from being threatened or induced, or to ensure the person turns up in court. If none of these apply, the police are expected to issue a notice to appear rather than make an arrest. As one summary of the recent jurisprudence puts it, “arrest is the exception, notice is the rule” for this middle band of offences.

For a non-cognizable offence, the position is straightforward. The police cannot arrest without a warrant. The complainant has to go to the Magistrate, and any arrest follows the Magistrate’s process. This is the practical heart of why non-cognizable offences feel so much slower for a complainant. There is no officer who can knock on the suspect’s door on the strength of the complaint alone.

The arrest stage also comes with a checklist of safeguards that apply across the board, cognizable or not. The arresting officer must bear an accurate, visible identification, must prepare a memorandum of arrest attested by a witness, and must inform the arrested person of the grounds of arrest and of the right to have a relative or friend told. These are not new in spirit, but the BNSS keeps them, and they matter because an arrest that ignores them can be challenged. The JudexTutorials overview of arrest under the BNSS walks through the formalities. For a complainant, the lesson is that even in a cognizable case, an arrest is a regulated act, not a free-for-all, and for an accused it is a set of rights worth knowing.

A point that trips up many people is the overlap with bailable and non-bailable. These are separate questions, and we keep them separate on purpose. Cognizable tells you whether the police can arrest without a warrant. Bailable tells you whether, once arrested, the person has a right to bail or must apply to a court for it. A cognizable offence can be bailable, and a serious arrest can still end in bail as a matter of right. If you want to go deeper on the bail side, our explainer on the bail is the rule, jail is the exception principle under Article 21 covers how courts approach that question.

For someone who fears arrest in a cognizable, non-bailable matter, the pre-arrest remedy is anticipatory bail, now under Section 482 of the BNSS. It lets a person apprehending arrest seek a direction in advance that, if arrested, they shall be released on bail. Our guide to anticipatory bail under BNSS Section 482 explains who can apply and how the procedure works, which is exactly the route many accused take the moment a cognizable FIR is registered against them.

Who controls the investigation

The investigation power is the quiet engine behind the whole distinction, and it is worth slowing down on.

For a cognizable offence, the police are in charge from the first minute. Once the FIR is registered under Section 173, the officer in charge can investigate without any order from a Magistrate. He can record statements, visit the scene, collect evidence, summon witnesses, and build the case. The Magistrate enters the picture later, when the police file their report, not at the start. This is what gives cognizable cases their momentum. The state owns the investigation.

For a non-cognizable offence, the police are powerless to investigate on their own. Under Section 174 BNSS, they must transmit the information to the Magistrate, and only the Magistrate’s order can authorise an investigation. This was Section 155(2) under the old CrPC, and the principle is unchanged. The Legal Quotient analysis of Section 174 explains that once the Magistrate orders an investigation, the officer then enjoys the same investigation powers as in a cognizable case, except the power to arrest without a warrant.

There is a useful detail here. Where a single case mixes cognizable and non-cognizable offences, the whole case is treated as cognizable for the purpose of investigation, even if one part standing alone would have needed the Magistrate’s permission. So the presence of even one cognizable component pulls the entire matter into the cognizable track. This is why charge-sheets often read like a long list of sections. One serious head can carry the rest.

The takeaway for a complainant is blunt. In a cognizable case, the investigating officer works for the system that took your complaint. In a non-cognizable case, nothing investigates itself until a court tells it to, and that court order is on you to obtain.

This difference also explains why the two tracks feel so different in cost and effort. A cognizable case shifts the burden of building the case onto the state. The investigating officer gathers evidence, the forensic apparatus is available, and witnesses can be summoned with the authority of an FIR behind them. A non-cognizable case leaves much of that burden on the complainant, at least until a Magistrate orders an investigation. You may have to lead your own evidence before the court, line up your own witnesses, and pursue the matter as a complaint case. For people without resources, that gap is not academic. It is the difference between a wrong being pursued by the state and a wrong that quietly dies because the aggrieved person could not keep returning to court.

There is one more practical consequence of who controls the investigation. In a cognizable case, the investigation ends with a police report (the charge-sheet or the closure report) filed before the Magistrate, and the Magistrate then decides whether to take cognizance. In a non-cognizable case routed through Section 174, the Magistrate is involved from the very first order, so the judicial eye is on the matter throughout. Neither route is automatically better for a complainant. The cognizable route is faster and better resourced; the non-cognizable route gives the complainant more direct control but demands far more stamina.

Lalita Kumari and the duty to register

No discussion of cognizable offences is complete without Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1. It is the case that turned the “shall register an FIR” language into a hard duty rather than a polite suggestion.

The facts were painfully ordinary. A minor girl, Lalita Kumari, was allegedly kidnapped. Her father went to the police to lodge an FIR, and the police refused, saying they first wanted to verify whether the complaint was true. That refusal, multiplied across thousands of police stations, was the disease the Supreme Court set out to cure.

A five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice P. Sathasivam, held that the registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the CrPC (now Section 173 of the BNSS) if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, and that no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. The Drishti Judiciary case note on Lalita Kumari and the LawyersClubIndia analysis of the guidelines both set out the holdings in full.

The Court did carve out a narrow space for a preliminary inquiry, but only where the information does not clearly disclose a cognizable offence and an inquiry is needed just to find out whether one is made out. Even then, the inquiry has to be limited and time-bound, and if it discloses a cognizable offence, the FIR must follow. The categories the Court mentioned where an inquiry may be appropriate include matrimonial and family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence, corruption cases, and cases with abnormal delay in reporting.

Here is the tension worth flagging honestly. BNSS Section 173(3), discussed earlier, now permits a preliminary enquiry for offences punishable between three and seven years, with a senior officer’s permission. Several commentators have argued that this provision sits uneasily with Lalita Kumari, because it appears to widen the preliminary-enquiry window that the Constitution Bench had narrowed. The analysis of Section 173(3) against Lalita Kumari lays out the debate. The courts will, in time, have to reconcile the two. For now, the safe reading is that for clearly disclosed cognizable offences the Lalita Kumari duty to register stands, and the Section 173(3) enquiry is the exception for a defined middle band.

For complainants who hit a wall when the police quash an allegation rather than record it, our piece on why FIR quashing orders must state the allegations is a useful companion, because the same instinct to look behind the complaint shows up at the quashing stage too.

Common offences and how they are classified

It helps to anchor the abstract definitions in real offences. The table below lists common offences and their usual classification. Always verify the exact entry in the First Schedule for your specific section, because special circumstances (the value of property stolen, the degree of hurt, repeat offences) can shift the classification.

OffenceUsual classificationWhy
MurderCognizable, non-bailableGravest crime; police must act at once
RapeCognizable, non-bailableSerious offence against the person
Kidnapping and abductionCognizable, non-bailableImmediate threat; warrantless arrest allowed
Robbery and dacoityCognizable, non-bailableViolence plus theft
TheftCognizablePolice can register an FIR and investigate
Grievous hurtCognizableSerious bodily harm
Simple hurt (minor)Non-cognizable, bailableMinor harm; treated as a private wrong
DefamationNon-cognizable, bailableReputation injury; complainant goes to court
Public nuisanceNon-cognizableMinor public-order matter
CheatingOften cognizable, depends on the sectionClassification varies by the exact BNS provision
Criminal intimidation (simple)Non-cognizable, bailableLower-grade threat
RiotingCognizable, bailablePolice act on their own, but bail is a right

Notice rioting at the bottom. It is cognizable and bailable, the clearest illustration that the two classifications run on separate tracks. The LawRato breakdown of common offences and the Vidhikarya guide to the categories both stress that you should never assume bailability from cognizability or the other way around.

A note on the section numbers. The examples above were historically cited from the Indian Penal Code, but offences are now charged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. So defamation, for instance, is now under the BNS rather than the old IPC Section 500. The classification logic survives the renumbering, but when you draft, cite the current BNS section, then confirm its cognizability against the First Schedule of the BNSS.

Cognizable vs non-cognizable: side by side

FeatureCognizable offenceNon-cognizable offence
BNSS definitionSection 2(1)(g)Section 2(1)(o)
Old CrPC definitionSection 2(c)Section 2(l)
What the police recordFIR under Section 173 BNSSNon-cognizable report (NCR) under Section 174 BNSS
Old CrPC FIR provisionSection 154Section 155
Can police investigate on their ownYes, from registrationNo, only on a Magistrate’s order
Arrest without warrantYes, subject to Section 35 filtersNo
Magistrate’s permission needed to startNoYes
Seriousness, in generalMore seriousLess serious
Copy of report to complainantYes, free, immediatelyNCR record; referred to Magistrate
Typical examplesMurder, rape, theft, kidnappingSimple hurt, defamation, public nuisance
Remedy if police refuseSection 175(3) BNSS, then MagistrateApproach the Magistrate directly

Keep this table as your mental checklist. Almost every practical question about a criminal complaint can be answered by reading down the correct column.

What a complainant should actually do

Theory is fine, but the moment that matters is when you are standing at the desk and the officer is reluctant. Here is the practical path, depending on which box your case is in.

If your offence is cognizable and the police register the FIR. Good. Get the free copy of the FIR. Check that your version is recorded accurately before you sign, because the FIR is the foundation document and contradictions later are used against you. Note the FIR number and the name of the investigating officer.

If your offence is cognizable but the police refuse to register the FIR. This is the Lalita Kumari scenario, and the BNSS gives you a clear escalation ladder. First, send the substance of the information in writing to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) / Section 175(3) BNSS. If the SP is satisfied that a cognizable offence is disclosed, the SP must either investigate or direct an investigation. If that does not work, approach the Judicial Magistrate, who can order an investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS. The Supreme Court has recently underlined that the BNSS puts a greater duty on the police officer to register FIRs, and the Orissa High Court has held that the Magistrate must hear the police officer on the reasons for refusal before ordering investigation. So the police now have to justify a refusal, on record, before a Magistrate.

If your offence is non-cognizable. Do not expect an FIR. Collect the NCR entry, then file a complaint before the Magistrate. The Magistrate can take cognizance and either order an investigation under Section 174 or proceed as a complaint case. Be prepared for this to be slower and more document-heavy than a cognizable case, because the engine only turns when the court starts it.

A practical tip on classification before you go. Spend a few minutes finding the exact BNS section for your grievance and checking its First Schedule entry. If you arrive knowing the section and its classification, you are far harder to fob off. Many complainants are turned away simply because they cannot name the offence, and the desk takes advantage of that uncertainty.

If your remedy lies in moving a High Court, for instance because the police and the Magistrate have both failed you, our guide on how to file a writ petition explains the route under Articles 226 and 32.

A complainant who has been through this on a legal forum thread about a Lalita Kumari violation captured the frustration well, describing how an FIR was simply not registered despite a clear cognizable offence and asking what the next step was. The answer, then and now, is the escalation ladder above. The law is on the complainant’s side; the difficulty is making the desk follow it.

Two more practical pointers are worth carrying with you. First, keep a paper trail at every step. When you send the written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, send it by a mode that gives you proof of dispatch, and keep the acknowledgement. The Section 175(3) route before the Magistrate requires you to show that you first approached the SP, so that proof is not optional. Second, do not let the police talk you into accepting a non-cognizable entry for what is plainly a cognizable offence. Downgrading a complaint at the desk, recording grievous hurt as simple hurt or a clear theft as a “missing property” entry, is a known way of avoiding the duty to register an FIR. If the offence you describe is cognizable, the correct response is an FIR, not an NCR, and you are entitled to insist on it.

The honest reality is that the gap between the law on paper and the experience at the desk remains real. Several commentators writing soon after the BNSS came into force warned that the new regime, with its preliminary-enquiry window and its layered escalation, could leave some complainants caught between a police force that will not register and a Magistrate who is told to first send them back. One column went so far as to describe a situation where “police will not register FIRs and magistrates cannot” directly order one without the procedural steps being followed. That is the worst-case reading, and the courts have been pushing back on it, but it is exactly why a complainant should arrive informed, with the offence identified and the escalation ladder ready.

How Niyam helps

Classifying an offence correctly is the first domino in any criminal matter, and it is exactly the kind of work where a sharp research tool saves hours. Niyam is built for Indian law. You can ask it to pull the BNSS definition of a cognizable offence, find the First Schedule classification for a specific BNS section, surface the leading case on mandatory FIR registration, or draft the Section 175(3) escalation letter when the police stall. It reads the new codes and the case law together, so you are not stitching the BNSS to the old CrPC by hand.

You can start for ₹100 and put it to work on a real classification question today. Register at app.niyam.ai/register and try it on your next FIR or complaint.

Frequently asked questions

Is a cognizable offence the same as a non-bailable offence?

No, and this is the most common confusion. Cognizable refers to whether the police can arrest without a warrant and investigate on their own. Bailable refers to whether the accused has a right to bail once arrested. The two are listed in separate columns of the First Schedule. A cognizable offence can be bailable (rioting is one example), and the classifications do not always line up.

Which BNSS section defines a cognizable offence?

Section 2(1)(g) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 defines a cognizable offence as one for which a police officer may arrest without a warrant, in accordance with the First Schedule or any other law. Non-cognizable offences are defined in Section 2(1)(o). Under the old CrPC, these were Sections 2(c) and 2(l).

Can the police refuse to register an FIR for a cognizable offence?

No. Following the Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., registration of an FIR under what is now Section 173 BNSS is mandatory once the information discloses a cognizable offence. If the police refuse, you can escalate in writing to the Superintendent of Police and then approach the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS.

What is the difference between an FIR and an NCR?

An FIR (First Information Report) is registered for a cognizable offence under Section 173 BNSS and triggers a police investigation automatically. An NCR (non-cognizable report) is merely an entry recorded for a non-cognizable offence under Section 174 BNSS. It does not start an investigation, and the complainant has to approach the Magistrate to take the matter forward.

Can the police arrest without a warrant in a non-cognizable case?

No. In a non-cognizable case the police cannot arrest without a warrant. The complainant must approach the Magistrate, and any arrest follows the Magistrate’s process. Warrantless arrest is available only in cognizable cases, and even then Section 35 BNSS imposes additional conditions for offences punishable with up to seven years.

Does BNSS still allow a preliminary enquiry before an FIR?

Yes, in a limited way. Section 173(3) BNSS allows the officer in charge, with prior permission from a Deputy Superintendent of Police or higher, to conduct a preliminary enquiry within fourteen days for cognizable offences punishable with three years or more but less than seven years. This is a new and debated feature, and commentators have questioned how it squares with Lalita Kumari. For clearly disclosed serious cognizable offences, the duty to register an FIR straight away still applies.

How do I find out if my offence is cognizable?

Identify the exact section of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (or the special law) that covers your grievance, then look it up in the First Schedule to the BNSS. The schedule has a column that states, for each offence, whether it is cognizable or non-cognizable. Do not rely on how serious the offence feels; read the actual entry.

Key takeaways

  • The cognizable and non-cognizable split decides whether the police can act first or whether a court must go first.
  • Cognizable offence is defined in BNSS Section 2(1)(g); non-cognizable in Section 2(1)(o). The old CrPC equivalents were Sections 2(c) and 2(l).
  • Cognizable offences get an FIR under Section 173 BNSS, automatic police investigation, and warrantless arrest subject to Section 35 conditions.
  • Non-cognizable offences get only an NCR under Section 174 BNSS, no investigation and no arrest without the Magistrate’s order.
  • The First Schedule to the BNSS is the authoritative table that classifies every offence. Read the actual entry rather than guessing from seriousness.
  • Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. makes FIR registration mandatory once a cognizable offence is disclosed, though Section 173(3) BNSS now carves out a narrow preliminary-enquiry window that sits uneasily with it.
  • Cognizable and bailable are separate questions. Do not assume one from the other.
  • If the police refuse to register a cognizable FIR, escalate to the Superintendent of Police and then to the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS.