Power of Police to Investigate (Sections 154 to 176 CrPC)

Sections 173 to 196 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — previously Sections 154 to 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — describe the entire chain of police investigation. The chain runs from the receipt of information, through the recording of statements, the arrest and detention of suspects, the recording of confessions, the inquest, and finally the police report that closes the file. Investigation is the work of the police and is largely insulated from court control while it is in progress. Once the report is filed, the file passes to the Magistrate — and the criminal trial proper begins.

The aspirant’s task is to read each provision as a checkpoint on a single procedural conveyor belt. Where one section enables, another safeguards; where the police gain a power, the Magistrate gains an oversight; and at every step, the BNSS overlays new digital and forensic obligations on the older CrPC architecture.

The investigative chain — a section-by-section map

The chain begins with information and ends with the police report.

1. Section 173 BNSS (previously Section 154 CrPC) — information in cognizable cases (the FIR). Treated separately in the FIR and Zero FIR chapter.
2. Section 174 BNSS (previously Section 155 CrPC) — information in non-cognizable cases.
3. Section 175 BNSS (previously Section 156 CrPC) — police officer’s power to investigate cognizable cases; Magistrate’s direction to investigate.
4. Section 176 BNSS (previously Section 157 CrPC) — procedure for investigation; mandatory forensic team for serious offences.
5. Sections 177 to 178 BNSS (previously Sections 158, 159) — report to Magistrate; Magistrate’s preliminary inquiry.
6. Section 179 BNSS (previously Section 160) — police officer’s power to require attendance of witnesses.
7. Section 180 BNSS (previously Section 161) — examination of witnesses by police; statements during investigation.
8. Section 181 BNSS (previously Section 162) — statements to police not to be signed; use at trial.
9. Section 183 BNSS (previously Section 164) — recording of statements and confessions by Magistrate.
10. Section 187 BNSS (previously Section 167) — procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours; police custody and judicial custody.
11. Sections 188 to 192 BNSS (previously Sections 168 to 172) — report of investigation; release of accused on insufficient evidence; case diary.
12. Section 193 BNSS (previously Section 173 CrPC) — the police report on completion of investigation, popularly the chargesheet.
13. Section 194 BNSS (previously Section 174 CrPC) — inquest by police on suspicious deaths.
14. Section 196 BNSS (previously Section 176 CrPC) — Magistrate’s inquiry into deaths in custody and similar cases.

The whole structure sits within the broader scheme of the present Code of Criminal Procedure notes, where the chapter on police investigation is the longest and most litigated.

Section 175 BNSS — the power and its limits

Section 175(1) BNSS authorises any officer in charge of a police station to investigate any cognizable case which a court within his local jurisdiction would have power to inquire into or try, without an order of a Magistrate. The trigger is the FIR; the engine is this section. The 1973 Code wrote this power as Section 156(1); the BNSS keeps it intact.

Three points repay attention.

First — the power is exclusive to the police. The court has no general supervisory role while the investigation is in progress. State of West Bengal v. Sampat Lal, AIR 1985 SC 195, and the long line beginning with King-Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, AIR 1945 PC 18, set the boundary: the courts will not throttle a properly initiated investigation.

Second — the new proviso. BNSS adds a proviso to sub-section (1) and a new sub-section (4) to protect public servants. Where an offence is alleged against a public servant in the discharge of official duties, the police officer must obtain a report from the public servant’s superior before initiating an investigation. The provision is calibrated to the experience that bona fide official decisions were being investigated as crimes; the safeguard does not extend to private acts.

Third — Section 175(3) and the Magistrate’s direction. The Magistrate empowered to take cognizance under Section 210 BNSS may, on a complaint or motion, direct an investigation under sub-section (3). The power is the most heavily used remedy when the police refuse to register an FIR or refuse to investigate one that is registered. The Magistrate must apply his mind; he cannot mechanically endorse a complaint. Where he directs investigation, the case proceeds as if the FIR had been registered suo motu. The full doctrinal treatment, including the Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 line, is in the initiation of proceedings chapter.

Section 176 BNSS — procedure and the new forensic mandate

Section 176 BNSS (previously Section 157 CrPC) tells the investigating officer how to proceed. He must send a report ‘forthwith’ to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance, and shall proceed in person, or depute a subordinate, to the spot to investigate the facts and, if necessary, to take steps for the discovery and arrest of the offender. The proviso to sub-section (1) preserves the discretion to refuse to investigate where the case is not of a serious nature or where there is no sufficient ground for proceeding — subject to recording reasons.

The BNSS overlays an important new rule. Section 176(3) BNSS makes a forensic team’s visit to the scene mandatory in offences punishable with seven years or more. The forensic team must collect evidence and the process must be videographed. The change is so consequential that the chapter on forensic investigation in serious offences treats it as a stand-alone reform. State governments have a transitional five-year window to put forensic infrastructure in place; until then, the State may notify alternate arrangements.

Search and seizure during investigation must be audio-video recorded under Section 105 BNSS — another departure from the CrPC. The detailed treatment is in the audio-video recording of search and seizure chapter.

Section 178 BNSS — the Magistrate’s preliminary inquiry

Section 178 BNSS (previously Section 159 CrPC) lets the Magistrate, on receipt of a Section 176 report, direct an investigation, or himself proceed (or depute a subordinate Magistrate) to hold a preliminary inquiry into the case. The provision is the safety valve where the police have decided not to investigate — under the proviso to Section 176(1) — or where the report is silent on whether a cognizable offence is disclosed. The inquiry follows the procedure for inquiries generally (Section 286 BNSS et seq.).

The exercise of Section 178 BNSS is discretionary; it is not a routine review of every police closure. Where the Magistrate is moved by a complainant against a police closure, his choice is between accepting the closure, directing further investigation, or initiating a Magistrate’s inquiry. Each choice has consequences for cognizance under Section 210 BNSS.

Sections 179, 180, 181 BNSS — statements to the police

Section 179 BNSS (previously Section 160 CrPC) authorises the police officer to require the attendance of any person within the limits of his own or an adjoining police station who appears to be acquainted with the facts. The proviso protects three categories — men under fifteen and over sixty, women, and persons with mental or physical disabilities — who cannot be required to attend at any place other than the place where they reside. BNSS keeps the protection.

Section 180 BNSS (previously Section 161 CrPC) lets the officer examine the witness and reduce his statement to writing. The witness is bound to answer truly all questions other than those that would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or penalty. The rule against self-incrimination, mirroring Article 20(3) of the Constitution, is statutory here.

Section 181 BNSS (previously Section 162 CrPC) is the rule of admissibility. No statement made by a person to a police officer in the course of investigation may be used at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation, except in two ways:

1. To contradict the maker, when he is examined as a witness for the prosecution, in the manner provided by Section 145 IEA / corresponding BSA provision.
2. To contradict the maker, when he is called as a witness for the defence (with permission), or to corroborate the maker on points to which he has been examined.

The exclusion is wide: the bar applies to any statement — oral or written, verbal or signed — made to a police officer during investigation. The rationale is that police-recorded statements are vulnerable to suggestion and pressure. Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 1012 set the architecture. The exception under Section 32(1) IEA / corresponding BSA provision for dying declarations is the most important exit door — covered in detail in the dying declarations chapter.

Section 183 BNSS — recording of confessions and statements by Magistrate

Section 183 BNSS (previously Section 164 CrPC) lets a Metropolitan or Judicial Magistrate record any statement or confession made to him in the course of an investigation, before the inquiry or trial begins. Two species of recordings are contemplated:

Confessions. A confession is admissible only if recorded after the Magistrate has explained that the maker is not bound to make it and that, if he does, it may be used as evidence. The Magistrate must be satisfied, on questioning, that the confession is voluntary. He must record it in the form prescribed for examination of an accused under Section 351 BNSS (previously Section 281 CrPC) and append a memorandum to the effect that the confession was voluntary. The confessor cannot be in police custody during recording — he must be in judicial custody. The detailed treatment of admissibility is in the confessions chapter.

Statements other than confessions. A statement — for example, a witness’s statement that the prosecution wants ‘locked in’ before trial — may be recorded under sub-section (5). Such a statement is recorded on oath, and the witness may later be examined and cross-examined. The chief use is to lock testimony in offences against women, child victims, and approvers.

BNSS adds an important new sub-section: the statement of a victim of any offence under Sections 64 to 71 BNS (rape and aggravated rape) must be recorded by a woman Magistrate; if not available, by a male Magistrate in the presence of a woman. The recording must be done by audio-video means.

Section 187 BNSS — custody and remand

Section 187 BNSS (previously Section 167 CrPC) governs the procedure where the investigation cannot be completed within twenty-four hours of arrest. The arrested person is to be produced before the nearest Judicial Magistrate. The Magistrate may authorise detention for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole — police custody if reasons are recorded; otherwise judicial custody.

The total maximum period of detention is the much-litigated point. Sub-section (2) limits the total custody pending investigation to:

1. Ninety days, where the offence is punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment of ten years or more.
2. Sixty days, where the offence is punishable with anything less.

If the investigation is not completed within these periods, the accused is entitled to be released on bail provided he is willing to and does furnish the bail — the ‘default bail’ or ‘statutory bail’ or ‘compulsive bail’. The right is indefeasible: Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 616. The full architecture, including the difference between default bail under Section 187 BNSS and merits-based bail, sits in the bail and bonds chapter.

A few BNSS-specific changes deserve flagging. The structural change in the way fifteen-day police custody is computed has been the subject of contemporary litigation. BNSS retains the fifteen-day cap on police custody but the explanatory provisions allow the fifteen days to be split across the sixty-day or ninety-day window, in such manner as the Magistrate may direct. The exact mechanics will turn on subsequent High Court guidance.

Section 192 BNSS — the case diary

Section 192 BNSS (previously Section 172 CrPC) requires the investigating officer to maintain a day-to-day diary of the investigation. The diary must record the time at which the information reached him, the time at which he began and closed the investigation, the place visited, and a statement of the circumstances ascertained. Sub-section (1A) (introduced by the 2008 CrPC amendment and retained in BNSS) makes it mandatory to insert the witness statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS in the diary; sub-section (1B) requires the diary to be a bound and paginated volume.

Three propositions hold. One, the case diary is not substantive evidence. It cannot be used to corroborate or contradict witnesses other than the investigating officer. Two, the investigating officer may use it to refresh his memory. Three, the court may use it to supervise the investigation, but not to plug evidentiary gaps. The leading authorities are Mahabir Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2001 SC 2503 and Mohammed Ankoos v. Public Prosecutor, AIR 2010 SC 566.

Section 193 BNSS — the police report (chargesheet)

Section 193 BNSS (previously Section 173 CrPC) is the section on which the trial is built. On completion of the investigation, the officer in charge forwards a report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance, in the prescribed form. The report sets out the names of the parties, the nature of the information, the names of acquainted persons, the offence appearing to have been committed, the persons against whom investigation has succeeded, and whether the accused has been arrested and forwarded.

BNSS strengthens the section in three ways. First, sub-section (2) extends the two-month investigation timeline (originally for rape and gang rape) to offences under Sections 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Second, sub-section (3)(i) permits forwarding of the report by electronic communication and requires the chain of custody for electronic devices to be specified. Third, sub-section (3)(ii) requires the police to inform the informant or victim of the progress of investigation within ninety days, by any means including electronic communication. Sub-section (8) is a new mandate: the police officer must forward sufficient copies of the police report for supply to the accused.

The police report under Section 193 BNSS is the trigger for cognizance under Section 210(1)(b) BNSS. The Magistrate may either take cognizance of the offence and proceed to issue process, or refuse cognizance, or direct further investigation. Once the chargesheet is filed and cognizance taken, the trial process under framing of charge begins.

Sections 194 and 196 BNSS — inquest

Section 194 BNSS (previously Section 174 CrPC) lays down the procedure for the police inquest. Where information is received that a person has committed suicide, has been killed by another, has died from an accident, or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion of crime, the officer in charge must give intimation to the Executive Magistrate and proceed to the place where the body lies. He examines the body, makes an inquiry into the apparent cause of death, prepares a report under his signature, describing the wounds and injuries, and sends the report to the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

Section 196 BNSS (previously Section 176 CrPC) is the Magistrate’s inquest. Where the death has occurred in police custody, in judicial custody, in a Government remand home, or under such other circumstances that warrant judicial scrutiny, the Magistrate empowered to hold inquests under sub-section (1) must hold an inquiry. BNSS makes the Magistrate’s inquiry mandatory in deaths in police custody, custodial rape, and certain other categories. The procedure must be followed alongside, not in lieu of, the police inquest.

Court control during investigation — the limits

Despite the expanded BNSS oversight powers, the police investigation remains insulated from court control on the merits. The High Court’s Section 528 BNSS inherent power and writ jurisdiction may be invoked, but only on narrow grounds — absence of a cognizable offence on the face of the FIR, mala fide, abuse of process, breach of statutory safeguards. The seven-category template in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 governs the calibration. The Magistrate’s control is exercised at three points: refusal to register (Section 175(3)); direction of further investigation; and acceptance or rejection of the police report at the cognizance stage.

The court does not have power to direct a closed investigation reopened, but the Magistrate may direct further investigation under Section 193(8) BNSS even after taking cognizance. The Supreme Court in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762 mapped the difference between ‘further investigation’ (police-led continuation) and ‘reinvestigation’ (a fresh start), the former being permissible without prior leave, the latter requiring a specific court order.

Investigation of non-cognizable offences and mixed offences

Section 174 BNSS (previously Section 155 CrPC) governs information about non-cognizable offences. The officer in charge enters the substance of the information in the diary, refers the informant to the Magistrate, and cannot investigate without the Magistrate’s order. The Magistrate’s order is granted on consideration of the application; once granted, the officer has the powers of an officer in charge in a cognizable case — except the power of arrest without warrant.

Sub-section (4) of Section 174 BNSS preserves the rule from Pravin Chandra Mody v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1185 — if at least one offence is cognizable, the case is treated as cognizable in its entirety, and the police may investigate without a Magistrate’s order. The companion gateway to the criminal process via direct complaint to the Magistrate is described in the complaint procedure chapter.

Common defects and reversible errors

Three failure modes are reliable MCQ pivots and recur in trial-court practice.

Investigation without jurisdiction. If the police investigate a non-cognizable offence without the Magistrate’s order under Section 174(2) BNSS, the resulting cognizance is liable to be set aside (Md. Malfar Rahaman v. Md. Kajimal Huzasin Baruah, 2007 CrLJ 1536 (Gau)). However, where the investigation has unearthed evidence and the trial has commenced, mere irregularity in investigation does not vitiate a conviction unless prejudice is shown: Section 510 BNSS (previously Section 465 CrPC) on irregularities saves curable defects.

Custody beyond statutory limits. Detention beyond ninety / sixty days under Section 187 BNSS without a chargesheet entitles the accused to default bail. Failure of the Magistrate to record reasons for police custody under sub-section (3) makes the order illegal: Mantoo Majumdar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1980 SC 847.

Improper recording of confession. A confession recorded under Section 183 BNSS while the accused is in police custody, or without compliance with the cautions under sub-sections (2) and (4), is inadmissible. A confession used at trial without compliance is a ground for acquittal — not as a procedural slip but as a violation of a substantive evidentiary safeguard. The matching Zero FIR and BNSS innovations chapter shows how the digital infrastructure dovetails with these safeguards.

Investigation timelines under BNSS — a quick reckoner

1. FIR registration: immediate; Lalita Kumari fourteen-day preliminary inquiry permissible only for offences punishable three to seven years.
2. Forensic team visit: mandatory in offences punishable seven years or more (Section 176(3) BNSS).
3. Information of progress to victim: within ninety days from FIR (Section 193(3)(ii) BNSS).
4. Investigation completion (rape, POCSO 4/6/8/10/12): two months from FIR (Section 193(2) BNSS).
5. Maximum custody pending investigation: ninety days (offence punishable death/life/10+ years) or sixty days (else); after which default bail under Section 187(2) BNSS.
6. Chargesheet: Section 193 BNSS; copies to be supplied to the accused.
7. Cognizance: Section 210 BNSS; explained in detail in the dedicated chapter.

Exam-angle takeaways

Five points that exam-setters reuse year after year.

1. Investigation begins with information of a cognizable offence and ends with the police report. The intermediate stages are statutory checkpoints, not optional steps.
2. Statements to police are inadmissible except for contradiction or for prosecution-corroboration in narrow form. The bar runs through the entire investigation and survives in BNSS Section 181 unchanged.
3. Section 187 BNSS default bail is indefeasible. If the chargesheet is not filed within sixty / ninety days and the accused applies, the right ripens; he must be released even if a chargesheet is filed before the bail order is passed.
4. Section 175(3) BNSS Magistrate’s direction is a remedy, not an entitlement. The Magistrate must apply his mind; mechanical orders are reversed.
5. Magistrate’s inquest under Section 196 BNSS is mandatory in custodial deaths. The dual-inquest regime — police plus Magistrate — is the constitutional safeguard against custodial impunity.

The investigation chapter rewards mapping. Keep the section-numbers and powers in a single table; layer the BNSS additions on top. The case law overwhelmingly remains good law; the changes are at the edges — forensics, digital communication, audio-video recording, victim communication, and the public-servant safeguard. The doctrinal core — Section 175(1) police power, Section 181 bar on use of police statements, Section 187 default bail, Section 193 chargesheet, Section 196 Magistrate’s inquest — is unchanged.

Frequently asked questions

Can the police investigate a cognizable offence without an FIR?

Yes, in narrow circumstances. Section 176(1) BNSS permits an officer in charge to start an investigation if he has reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence, ‘from information received or otherwise’. The Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi, AIR 1964 SC 221 confirmed this. However, registration of an FIR is the rule once a cognizable offence is disclosed: Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1. The intermediate space — suspicion-based pre-FIR steps — is treated as ‘preliminary inquiry’ and not as ‘investigation’ in the technical sense; statements made there are not hit by Section 181 BNSS.

What is the difference between Section 175(3) BNSS direction and the Magistrate’s power under Section 178 BNSS?

Section 175(3) BNSS empowers the Magistrate to direct an investigation by the police on a complaint or motion at the pre-cognizance stage. Section 178 BNSS empowers the Magistrate, on receipt of a Section 176 report, to direct an investigation, or to himself hold a preliminary inquiry, or to depute another Magistrate. Section 175(3) is the remedy where the police refuse to register or investigate; Section 178 is the Magistrate’s response to a police report (typically of closure or non-investigation). In practice, the two operate at different points on the same conveyor belt — one before the police-led process is initiated, the other after it has run its course.

Is a statement made under Section 180 BNSS to a police officer admissible at trial?

No, except for limited purposes under Section 181 BNSS. The statement may be used to contradict the maker if he is called as a prosecution witness (Section 145 IEA); to contradict him if he is called as a defence witness; or, with permission, to corroborate him on points to which he has been examined. The statement cannot be substantive evidence of the offence. The exclusion is wide and applies to the entire investigation. The most important exit door is Section 32(1) IEA / corresponding BSA provision — a dying declaration is admissible as substantive evidence even if recorded by a police officer during investigation.

When is the accused entitled to default bail under Section 187 BNSS?

Default bail accrues if the police fail to file the chargesheet within sixty days (where the offence is punishable with imprisonment of less than ten years) or ninety days (where the offence is punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment of ten years or more) from the date of first remand. The accused must apply and must furnish bail; the right is indefeasible once accrued (Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 616). A chargesheet filed after the accused has applied but before bail is granted does not extinguish the right (M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, (2021) 2 SCC 485). Default bail is independent of merit-based bail and operates on a separate logic.

What is the difference between ‘further investigation’ and ‘reinvestigation’?

Further investigation is a continuation of the police-led investigation by the same agency, permissible without prior court leave under Section 193(8) BNSS; the original chargesheet remains on record and supplementary reports are added. Reinvestigation is a fresh start by a different agency or with a different scope, permissible only on a specific court order. The Supreme Court in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762 mapped the distinction. A Magistrate or High Court may, in exceptional cases, transfer investigation to the CBI or to a Special Investigation Team; that is reinvestigation. A police officer realising mid-trial that he missed a witness or document conducts further investigation.

Can a confession recorded under Section 183 BNSS be retracted?

Yes. A confession may be retracted at any time before the trial concludes. A retracted confession is not automatically inadmissible — the court must satisfy itself that the retraction is genuine and not the product of subsequent pressure. The retracted confession requires corroboration by independent evidence on the substantive points before it can ground a conviction. The cautions given by the Magistrate, the time gap between arrest and recording, the period of judicial custody before recording, and the circumstances of the retraction are all relevant in assessing voluntariness. The dedicated confessions chapter sets out the full evidentiary treatment.