Explanation:

This question pertains to the procedure for registering a First Information Report (FIR) when a case involves a combination of cognizable and non-cognizable offences, as per the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973. The relevant provision here is Section 155(4) of the CrPC. Let's analyze each option: Option (1): "The case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case." This option accurately reflects the legal position. Section 155(4) of the CrPC explicitly states: "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." The rationale behind this provision is to ensure that serious offences (cognizable ones, where police can arrest without a warrant) are investigated thoroughly, even if they are mixed with less serious (non-cognizable) offences. Once a case is deemed cognizable, the police gain the power to investigate the entire matter, including the non-cognizable parts, without needing a Magistrate's order, which would otherwise be required for non-cognizable offences under Section 155(2). Option (2): "If it is a warrant case, it shall be deemed to be a cognizable case otherwise it shall be deemed to be a non-cognizable case." This option introduces the concept of a 'warrant case', which is a classification based on the severity of punishment (offences punishable with imprisonment for more than two years). While the distinction between warrant and summons cases is important in CrPC for trial procedures, it is not the primary determinant for whether a mixed-offence case is deemed cognizable or non-cognizable at the FIR registration stage. The cognizable/non-cognizable distinction is about police power to arrest and investigate without a warrant, irrespective of whether the case is ultimately a warrant or summons case. Therefore, this option is incorrect as it conflates two different classifications and misstates the rule. Option (3): "The case shall be deemed to be a non-cognizable case." This option is directly contrary to Section 155(4) of the CrPC. If even one offence in a mixed case is cognizable, the entire case is treated as cognizable to facilitate comprehensive police investigation. Treating it as a non-cognizable case would severely restrict police powers, requiring a Magistrate's order for investigation, which is not the intent or letter of the law when a cognizable offence is present. Hence, this option is factually and legally incorrect. Option (4): "For a cognizable offence it shall be treated as a cognizable case and for the non-cognizable offence it shall be deemed to be a non-cognizable case." This option suggests a compartmentalized approach, treating each offence separately. While conceptually appealing to some, this is not the procedure laid down in CrPC. Section 155(4) specifically overrides this compartmentalization by stating that if *at least one* offence is cognizable, the *entire case* is deemed cognizable. This unified approach prevents procedural hurdles and ensures effective investigation of the more serious aspects of the crime. Therefore, this option is incorrect because it contradicts the explicit mandate of Section 155(4).