IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

118

Navpreet Singh and others

State of Punjab

CORAM:

PRESENT:

SANJAY VASHISTH

1.

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘BNSS, 2023’), petitioners,

i.e., (i) Inspector Navpreet Singh, (ii) HC Rajwinder Singh, (iii) SC Harjit

Singh, (iv) SCT Jaswinder Singh Man, have challe

18.02.2025, passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class

Magistrate, Bathinda (in short, ‘Ld. JMIC’), whereby, while taking

cognizance u/s 210(1)(c) of BNSS, 2023 in CRM No.707, dated 18.02.2025,

all the petitioners along w

summoned under Sections 103, 238, 340 r/w 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 (in short, ‘BNS, 2023’) (corresponding Sections 302, 201,

470/471 r/w 149 IPC).

2.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Navpreet Singh and others

Versus

State of Punjab

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

PRESENT: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate,

Ms. Bhavi Kapur, Advocate and

Mr. Prince Goyal, Advocate

for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Amandeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

By filing present petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘BNSS, 2023’), petitioners,

i.e., (i) Inspector Navpreet Singh, (ii) HC Rajwinder Singh, (iii) SC Harjit

Singh, (iv) SCT Jaswinder Singh Man, have challe

18.02.2025, passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class

Magistrate, Bathinda (in short, ‘Ld. JMIC’), whereby, while taking

cognizance u/s 210(1)(c) of BNSS, 2023 in CRM No.707, dated 18.02.2025,

all the petitioners along with one SCT Gaganpreet Singh, have been

summoned under Sections 103, 238, 340 r/w 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 (in short, ‘BNS, 2023’) (corresponding Sections 302, 201,

470/471 r/w 149 IPC).

Material Facts: -

On 17.10.2024, at about 11:45 PM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-14743-2025

Reserved on : 05.04.2025

Pronounced on: 01.07.2025

. . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

. . . Respondent(s)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate,

Ms. Bhavi Kapur, Advocate and

Mr. Amandeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

By filing present petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘BNSS, 2023’), petitioners,

i.e., (i) Inspector Navpreet Singh, (ii) HC Rajwinder Singh, (iii) SC Harjit

Singh, (iv) SCT Jaswinder Singh Man, have challenged the order dated

18.02.2025, passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class-cum-Illaqa

Magistrate, Bathinda (in short, ‘Ld. JMIC’), whereby, while taking

cognizance u/s 210(1)(c) of BNSS, 2023 in CRM No.707, dated 18.02.2025,

ith one SCT Gaganpreet Singh, have been

summoned under Sections 103, 238, 340 r/w 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 (in short, ‘BNS, 2023’) (corresponding Sections 302, 201,

On 17.10.2024, at about 11:45 PM, Inspector Navpreet Singh

Reserved on : 05.04.2025

Pronounced on: 01.07.2025

. . . Petitioner(s)

. . . Respondent(s)

By filing present petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘BNSS, 2023’), petitioners,

i.e., (i) Inspector Navpreet Singh, (ii) HC Rajwinder Singh, (iii) SC Harjit

nged the order dated

Illaqa

Magistrate, Bathinda (in short, ‘Ld. JMIC’), whereby, while taking

cognizance u/s 210(1)(c) of BNSS, 2023 in CRM No.707, dated 18.02.2025,

ith one SCT Gaganpreet Singh, have been

summoned under Sections 103, 238, 340 r/w 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 (in short, ‘BNS, 2023’) (corresponding Sections 302, 201,

, Inspector Navpreet Singh

CRM-M-14743-2025 - 2 -

69/IC, CIA.I, Bathinda deposits the dead body of deceased Bhinder Singh in

the Civil Hospital, Bathinda, which is received by Dr. Rajat Sharma, MO,

vide postmortem register entry No. 573 dated 17.10.2024. Subsequently, at

about 4:43 AM, on 18.10.2024, Inspector Navpreet Singh enters DDR No.

03 Dated 18.10.2024, PS Thermal, Bathinda which reads as under:

"Insp. Navpreet Singh, IC, CIA.1, had received a secret

information that Baljinder Singh @ Billa, an accused wanted in

FIR No.191/2021, PS Civil Lines, Bathinda, had come present

at the house of co-accused in the said FIR, Satnam Singh son of

Darshan Singh, resident of Kothe Mehna Patti, Lakhi Jangle,

District Bathinda. Accordingly, Inspector Navpreet Singh

alongwith HC Rajwinder Singh, No.622/BTI, S, CT Harjeet

Singh, No.193, PHG4 Mahinder Singh, PHG Gurwinder

Singh, raided aforesaid house of Satnam Singh, but aforesaid

Baljinder Singh @ Billa was not found there. Then they again

contacted the police informer, who informed that brother of

Satnam Singh, namely Bhinder Singh, who is required in other

cases registered at PS Nehianwala, was seen going towards

Bathinda, alongwith one person resembling Baljinder Singh @

Billa. Thereafter, Inspector Navpreet Singh alongwith the

police party, tracing the said person reached near thermal plant

lakes, where they saw in street lights, that at the roadside, one

young man was sitting on the motorcycle and the other was

standing near him, talking to each other. The person who was

standing was Bhinder Singh @ Kaka Nihang son of Darshan

Singh, resident of Kothe Mahana Patti, Lakhi Jangal. The

inspector identified him as he was previously known to him.

Seeing the police party, the young man, who was sitting on the

motorcycle, ran away from the spot and Bhinder Singh son of

Darshan Singh jumped into the water of the lake. Inspector with

the help of the police party tried to rescue him and took him out

of the water and taken to Civil Hospital, where he was declared

CRM-M-14743-2025 - 3 -

dead. The dead body of Bhinder Singh was deposited in the

Mortuary of Civil Hospital, Bathinda."

3. On 18.10.2024, ASI Gurpreet Singh entered DDR No.25 dated

18.10.2024, PS Thermal, stating that the father and relatives of the deceased

were present at CH Bathinda but refused to record statements and father of

the deceased namely Darshan Singh verbally stated that he would talk to his

other son Satnam Singh, who is lodged in Jail, before recording any

statement. But newspapers dated 19.10.2024, namely 'Bhaskar' and

'Punjabi Jagran' and one online Public App reported that relatives of

deceased Bhinder Singh had protested and alleged that police officials of

CIA, tortured Bhinder Singh to death as they had picked him from the place

near village Lakhi Jangal, on 17.10.2024, with the allegation of keeping

illegal weapon and kept him in CIA Staff and had also searched their house

at 10:00 PM, but did not find anything. They further alleged that the police

tried to put pressure on them to settle the matter for Rs.20 Lac.

4. On the same day i.e 18-10-2024 at 8:37 PM, an email complaint

dt 18.10.2024 was made from email Id suryasingla429@gmail.com, to the

Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, DGP and SSP, Bathinda, alleging

that CIA-1, Bathinda police officials illegally detained a person, tortured

him to death, covered up the matter, by proceeding u/s 174 Cr.P.C. (S.194

BNSS) and praying for autopsy by the Board of Doctors. An email was also

sent to the Civil Surgeon Bathinda for constituting the board of doctors to

conduct autopsy.

5. On 19.10.2024, Satnam Singh (brother of the deceased), lodged

in Central Jail Ferozpur, made a written complaint dt. 19.10.2024, before Ld.

CRM-M-14743-2025 - 4 -

Sessions Judge, Ferozpur, during the jail inspection, alleging that on

17.10.2024 his brother Bhinder Singh was illegally detained, interrogated,

and tortured to death by the police without any fault and prayed for justice.

Said complaint was ultimately intimated to Ld. District & Sessions Judge,

Bathinda, giving way to the inquiry.

6. Interestingly, on 19.10.2024, ASI Gurpreet Singh, No.632 PS

Thermal, entered a DDR No. 29/19.10.2024/PS Thermal, stating that

Darshan Singh, father of the deceased, suffered a statement that his son

Bhinder Singh jumped in the thermal lake and died naturally. He doesn't

want to take action against anyone. Accordingly, police proceeded u/s 194

BNSS. Ultimately on 20.10.2024, at 9:30 AM, police submitted papers u/s

194 BNSS before SMO, Bathinda, and at 9:45 AM, Dr. Rajat Sharma ENT

Specialist in the Civil Hospital, conducted the postmortem vide PMR

No.RS/82/CHBTI Dt.20.10.2024. No viscera was sent for

chemical/histopathological examination. No diatom test was done. No

videography was done. The final opinion on the cause of death was given on

the same day as ‘Cause of death is Asphyxia due to antemortem

drowning’.

7. It is on the basis of the complaint dated 19.10.2024 (moved

from Central Jail by Satnam Singh B/o deceased Bhinder Singh) that Ld.

District & Sessions Judge, Bathinda, gave way to initiate inquiry, and

therefore, in compliance to the letter dated 22.10.2024, forwarded by Ld.

ACJM, Bathinda, Ld. JMIC, Bathinda was appointed as an “Inquiry Officer”

under Section 196 of BNSS, 2023 (Section 176 Cr.P.C.), for conducting

thorough inquiry into the death of Bhinder Singh, who died under suspicious

CRM-M-14743-2025 - 5 -

circumstances.

After completion of inquiry, Ld. JMIC, Bathinda, submitted his

report vide letter No.32, dated 07.02.2025, concluding that Bhinder Singh

was in illegal custody of CIA-1, Bathinda on 17.10.2024, when he died

under suspicious circumstances like water boarding with cause of death

being Asphyxia due to ante mortem drowning. It was also concluded that

the explanation given by the police party that Bhinder Singh jumped into

Thermal Lake himself, seemed highly improbable.

8. After submitting the inquiry report, Ld. CJM, Bathinda, again

entrusted the matter to Ld. JMIC-cum-Illaqa Magistrate, Bathinda, for

further proceedings with the observation that an appropriate action is

required to be taken as per law by this Court “being jurisdictional

Magistrate”.

It is how the matter reached back to the Court of Area

Magistrate/Jurisdictional Magistrate, to proceed accordingly as per law on

judicial side.

9. After discussing all the material facts, statements of the

relatives of the deceased Bhinder Singh, also the now summoned accused,

and other relevant witnesses, the statements of the Doctors, which were

recorded during the course of inquiry, and also by taking into account the

opinion of Forensic Expert, Jurisdictional Magistrate exercised his power

under Section 210(1)(c) of BNSS, 2023 [Section 190(1)(C) Cr.P.C.] and

took cognizance of the offence by noticing that there are sufficient grounds

to proceed further as per Section 227 of BNSS, 2023 (Section 204 Cr.P.C.).

This is how, process of summoning has been issued u/s

CRM-M-14743-2025 - 6 -

227(1)(b) of BNSS, 2023, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear

before it, vide its’ impugned order dated 18.02.2025. Ld. Magistrate has

issued summons to take cognizance of the offence(s) u/s 103, 238, 340 r/w

190 of BNS, 2023.

10. Arguments raised by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners: -

(i) Ld. Area Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under

Section 210(1)(c) of BNSS, 2023, and then simultaneously

issued the process against the petitioners. It is argued by

petitioners’ counsel that in fact, the case was either to be treated

as a complaint case, and thereupon, statements of witnesses

were to be recorded under Chapter XVI (Section 223 to 226) of

BNSS, 2023. In alternative, matter could have been remanded

back to the police for investigation, and thereupon, cognizance

was to be taken on the basis of police report, so submitted.

Broadly, the submission is that without there being any

complaint before the Magistrate or a police investigation report

before the Court, it cannot be considered that sufficient

material/grounds are available on record to summon the

petitioners/accused. Moreover, the material collected during

the course of judicial inquiry, that too by the same Magistrate,

cannot be looked into without same being reiterated or referred

by the witnesses before the Court, if treated to be a complaint

case. Thus, argues that taking cognizance directly and then

summoning the petitioners/accused is bad in law.

(ii) Second argument addressed by petitioners’ counsel is that by

CRM-M-14743-2025 - 7 -

adhering to Chapter XV and taking cognizance under Section

210(1)(c) of BNSS, 2023 directly, the provision of Chapter

XVII i.e. ‘commencement of proceeding before the Magistrate’,

couldn’t be invoked.

(iii) While referring to Section 227(2) of BNSS, 2023, Mr.

Ahluwalia, counsel for the petitioners, submits that even there

is no list of prosecution witnesses, and therefore, said provision

of law negates the issuance of summons or warrants.

(iv) It is also argued that in compliance to Section 231, copy of the

statements and documents are to be supplied to the summoned

accused (petitioners herein), as the offences are triable by the

Court of Sessions. Once the process has been issued under

Section 227 of BNSS, 2023, there has to be compliance of the

said provision of law. In the absence of any complaint, there

being no list of witnesses available on record, no such statement

of the witnesses, there appears to be no material including the

statements or documents, which could be supplied to them

(petitioners herein). Therefore, merely based upon the inquiry

report, prepared under Section 196 of BNSS, 2023, accused

could not be summoned.

In support of his submissions, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners

places reliance upon the following judgments: -

(a) Tmt. R. Kasthuri v. State by the District Collector,

Cuddalore & District and others, 2014(41) RCR

(Criminal) 883 : Law Finder Doc Id # 654937 (DOD:

19.12.2014);

CRM-M-14743-2025 - 8 -

(b) Sushil Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha, 2017 SCC

Online Ori 556 : : Law Finder Doc Id # 978413 (DOD:

21.08.2017);

(c) Sheetoshna Pugareya and others v. State of Madhya

Pradesh and another, M.Cr.C. No.16708 of 2015 and

M.Cr.C. No.16221 of 2015 : Law Finder Doc Id #

1421675 (DOD: 27.01.2016);

(d) K. Shankaraiah, S.I. of Police, Proddatur I Town v.

State of A.P., 1983 CriLJ 1296 : Law Finder Doc Id #

270272 (DOD: 22.11.1982); and

(e) People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of A.P. &

Anr., 1986(1) Scale 321 : Law Finder Doc Id # 534199

(DOD: 09.01.1986).

Further argues that no fresh material was collected before

issuance of process. Rather, Ld. Magistrate has considered the statement of

the summoned accused – Navpreet Singh, which was recorded during

enquiry (referred in paragraph No.12 of the impugned order). Since

prosecution cannot rely upon the statement of the accused recorded in the

proceeding of same inquiry, it could not be made basis for summoning the

same accused.

11. While appearing on advance notice, learned State counsel

defended the impugned order by submitting that power under Section

210(1)(c) of BNSS, 2023, is exclusive in nature, which has been lawfully

exercised by Ld. Magistrate. Therefore, there is no reason to cause any

interference with the impugned order.

Further argued that present petition has been filed prematurely,

because the petitioners’ right of raising objection has already been taken care

of, by the legislation by incorporating Section 211 of BNSS, 2023. In fact,

CRM-M-14743-2025 - 9 -

whatever is being argued before this Court, requires to be submitted by the

summoned accused before the summoning Court by filing objection

application to the same Court, expressing the prejudices, likely to be

suffered by them.

State counsel further argued that Ld. Magistrate applied its

mind on the inquiry report, wherein, already sufficient information along

with material was available to enable the Ld. Magistrate to exercise his suo

motu power u/s 210(1)(c) of BNSS, 2023 for issuing process. Summoned

accused would be entitled under Section 211 of BNSS, 2023, to seek the

alleged offence(s) inquired into by some other Magistrate. Thus, submits

that there being nothing wrong, the impugned order has been perfectly

passed.

There can’t be any dispute that alleged offense in the present

case are triable by the Court of Sessions.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State

counsel at length, and also gone through the petition as well as the impugned

order, wherein, lot of material has already been discussed by the summoning

Magistrate.

13. Legislation has made compartmentalization of the Act, keeping

in view the objectivity of the Statute. Under Chapter XV, legislation laid

down certain conditions, which are required for initiating the proceedings

against the accused by the Judicial Magistrate. For taking cognizance of an

offence by a Magistrate, under Chapter XV, three sources have been defined

by the Statute, i.e., Section 210(1)(a), (b) & (c) of BNSS, 2023.

In the instant case, cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate

CRM-M-14743-2025 - 10 -

under third mode of taking cognizance, i.e., Section 210(1)(c) of the BNSS,

2023.

14. Just to avoid apprehension of causing prejudice to the either

side, before dealing with the legal issue, i.e., taking cognizance of the

offence(s) by a Magistrate u/s 210(1)(c), following provisions from BNSS,

2023 are required to be gone into: -

“ CHAPTER XV

CONDITIONS REQUISITE FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS

210. Cognizance of offences by Magistrate. (1) Subject to the

provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any

Judicial Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this

behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence—

(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts, including any

complaint filed by a person authorised under any special law, which

constitutes such offence;

(b) upon a police report (recorded in any mode including

digital mode) of such facts;

(c) upon information received from any person other than

a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has

been committed.

(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any

Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-section

(1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or

try

211. Transfer on application of accused. When a Magistrate

takes cognizance of an offence under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of

section 210, the accused shall, before any evidence is taken, be

informed that he is entitled to have the case inquired into or tried by

another Magistrate, and if the accused or any of the accused, if there

be more than one, objects to further proceedings before the

Magistrate taking cognizance, the case shall be transferred to such

other Magistrate as may be specified by the Chief Judicial

Magistrate in this behalf.

xx xxx xx xxx

xx xxx xx xxx

212. Making over of cases to Magistrates.(1) Any Chief

Judicial Magistrate may, after taking cognizance of an offence, make

over the case for inquiry or trial to any competent Magistrate

subordinate to him.

(2) Any Magistrate of the first class empowered in this behalf by

the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, after taking cognizance of an

offence, make over the case for inquiry or trial to such other

competent Magistrate as the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, by

CRM-M-14743-2025 - 11 -

general or special order, specify, and thereupon such Magistrate

may hold the inquiry or trial.

213. Cognizance of offences by Court of Session.Except as

otherwise expressly provided by this Sanhita or by any other law for

the time being in force, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of

any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has

been committed to it by a Magistrate under this Sanhita.

214 to 222. xx xxx xx xxx

xx xxx xx xxx

CHAPTER XVI

COMPLAINTS TO MAGISTRATES

223. Examination of complainant. (1) A Magistrate having

jurisdiction while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall

examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if

any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to

writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses,

and also by the Magistrate:

Provided that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by

the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being

heard:

Provided further that when the complaint is made in writing,

the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the

witnesses—

(a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the

discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint;

or

(b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or

trial to another Magistrate under section 212:

Provided also that if the Magistrate makes over the case to

another Magistrate under section 212 after examining the

complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re-

examine them.

(2) A Magistrate shall not take cognizance on a complaint

against a public servant for any offence alleged to have been

committed in course of the discharge of his official functions or

duties unless—

(a) such public servant is given an opportunity to make

assertions as to the situation that led to the incident so alleged; and

(b) a report containing facts and circumstances of the

incident from the officer superior to such public servant is received.

224. Procedure by Magistrate not competent to take

cognizance of case. 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.

CRM-M-14743-2025 - 12 -

225. Postponement of issue of process. (1) Any Magistrate,

on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to

take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section

212, may, if he thinks fit, and shall, in a case where the accused is

residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his

jurisdiction, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and

either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be

made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for

the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for

proceeding:

Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be

made,—

(a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence

complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or

(b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court,

unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been

examined on oath under section 223.

(2) In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate

may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath:

Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence

complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall

call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine

them on oath.

(3) If an investigation under sub-section (1) is made by a

person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation

all the powers conferred by this Sanhita on an officer in charge of a

police station except the power to arrest without warrant.

226. Dismissal of complaint. If, after considering the

statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses

and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section

225, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground

for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such

case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing.

CHAPTER XVII

COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE MAGISTRATES

227. Issue of process. (1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate

taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for

proceeding, and the case appears to be

(a) a summons-case, he shall issue summons to the

accused for his attendance; or

(b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks

fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear

at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction

himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction.

(2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the

accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the prosecution

witnesses has been filed.

(3) In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in

writing, every summons or warrant issued under sub-section (1)

shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint: Provided that

CRM-M-14743-2025 - 13 -

summons or warrants may also be issued through electronic means.

(4) When by any law for the time being in force any

process-fees or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued

until the fees are paid and, if such fees are not paid within a

reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint.

(5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the

provisions of section 90

xx xxx xx xxx

xx xxx xx xxx

231. Supply of copies of statements and documents to

accused in other cases triable by Court of Session. Where, in a case

instituted otherwise than on a police report, it appears to the

Magistrate issuing process under section 227 that the offence is

triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the Magistrate shall

forthwith furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the

following:—

(i) the statements recorded under section 223 or section

225, of all persons examined by the Magistrate;

(ii) the statements and confessions, if any, recorded under

section 180 or section 183;

(iii) any documents produced before the Magistrate on

which the prosecution proposes to rely:

Provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any such

document is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused

with a copy thereof, direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it

either personally or through an advocate in Court:

Provided further that supply of documents in electronic form

shall be considered as duly furnished.”

15. Chapter XVI exclusively deals with the complaint cases,

cognizance in which is taken by the Magistrate u/s 210(1)(a) of BNSS, 2023.

It does not deal with any other mode of taking cognizance, i.e., upon police

report or upon information received from any person or upon Magistrate’s

own knowledge. Therefore, reliance placed by the petitioners’ counsel

based upon the judgments cited before this Court, would not be directly

applicable to the situation of taking cognizance falling u/s 210(1)(c) of

BNSS, 2023.

It also requires to be understood that Magistrate’s power to take

cognizance u/s 210(1)(c) is exclusive, independent and of holistic value. To

CRM-M-14743-2025 - 14 -

remove any doubt or apprehension of biasness of the summoned accused,

legislation has inserted Section 211 making it obligatory over the Magistrate

to apprise the summoned accused of his right to file objection and then to

proceed as per the consequential directions issued by the Chief Judicial

Magistrate in that behalf. Actually, in the present case, petitioners have

assumed that without following the procedure given under Chapter XVI,

they could not have been summoned by the Magistrate. Whereas, from the

bare reading of the provisions, it is clear that power to take cognizance u/s

210(1)(c) is exclusive and independent, however, on summoning of the

accused, it would be subject to the mandatory compliance of Section 211 of

BNSS, 2023. Obligation over the Magistrate and entitlement of the

summoned accused u/s 210(1)(c) are that; -

(i) just on appearance of the summoned

person/accused first time in response to the

issuance of process and before taking any

evidence, Magistrate shall inform about the

entitlement to the summoned accused to seek

inquiry or trial from any other Magistrate.

(ii) if any of the accused objects for further

proceedings by the same Magistrate, who took

cognizance, it shall be apprized to the Chief

Judicial Magistrate.

(iii) considering the objections of the summoned

accused, Ld. CJM shall transfer the proceedings to

some other Magistrate, before whom proceedings

of inquiry or trial may commence, if there is any

such demand by the summoned accused.

Petitioners in the present case have filed the instant petition,

CRM-M-14743-2025 - 15 -

challenging the summoning order directly before this Court, without availing

the remedy of seeking inquiry/fresh inquiry, which is available to them u/s

211 of BNSS, 2023.

16. It would not be left unnoticed that petitioners have been issued

the process u/s 227(1)(b) of BNSS, 2023, which says that even in warrant

cases, if Magistrate thinks it appropriate, accused can be summoned to be

brought before it for the purpose of appearance only. Undoubtedly, before

resorting to the stage of issuing process, as in the present case also, it is

obligatory over the concerned Magistrate to have enough material before it

for satisfying itself of happening of the offence(s) to resort to its power.

Apprehension of the petitioners that there is no statement or

document to be supplied to them seems to be unfounded, because the

impugned order, which is detailed one, clearly suggests that there was

enough material before the Magistrate while taking cognizance on judicial

side and it is entirely on the basis of Magistrate’s satisfaction that process

has been issued for commencement of the proceedings.

17. It is also settled proposition of law that accused has no locus

standi at this stage, where Magistrate has to take a decision, as to whether

process is required to be issued to the accused or not. Therefore, in the

opinion of this Court for taking cognizance u/s 210(1)(c) of BNSS, 2023 and

to issue process, it is not obligatory over the Court to record statements of

the witnesses or even to call for the aggrieved party. Bare reading of the

provision is entirely based upon the satisfaction of the Magistrate, who

comes to know of happening of some offence, on his own or even upon

information from any person, other than the police officer. Not only this,

CRM-M-14743-2025 - 16 -

Magistrate can take cognizance entirely on the basis of his own knowledge

also for committing an offence, and thereupon, no specific procedure is

required to be adopted or followed before issuance of process vis-à-vis the

suspect. However, even in a warrant case, if thinks fit, Magistrate can direct

the accused to be brought before it simply by issuing summon for

appearance by virtue of Section 227(1)(b) of BNSS, 2023.

18. To have a comparative study of entitlement of accused to raise

objection u/s 211 with that of first proviso to Section 223 of BNSS, 2023, it

can now be safely understood that legislation has already taken notice of the

false acquisition, if any, because in both the situations summoned

person/accused has been granted opportunity of hearing in advance to

proceed further.

Recently, Kerala High Court in its decision dated 22.01.2025,

passed in CRL.MC No.508 of 2025, titled as, “Suby Antony v. Susha and

others”, dealt with the first proviso of Section 223 of BNSS, 2023, and held

that actual cognizance by Magistrate would be taken for the purpose of

regulating the procedure, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the

accused. Para No.7 and 8 of the same, reads as under: -

“ 7. Indeed, a radical change in procedure is brought about

by the proviso to Section 223(1) of BNSS. Pertinently, in spite of the

proviso to Section 223(1) making it mandatory to provide

opportunity of hearing to the accused before taking cognisance,

Section 226 does not reckon the accused's objection at the stage of

taking cognisance as a relevant factor for dismissing the complaint.

Being guided by the precedents on Sections 200 and 202 of the Code

and the plain language of the proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS,

this Court is of the opinion that , after the complaint is filed, the

Magistrate should first examine the complainant and witnesses on

CRM-M-14743-2025 - 17 -

oath and thereafter, if the Magistrate proceeds to take cognisance of

the offence/s, opportunity of hearing should be afforded to the

accused. I am also in complete agreement with the following

procedural drill delineated by the High Court of Karnataka in

Basanagouda's case (supra);

“9. To steer clear the obfuscation, it is necessary to

notice the language deployed therein. The Magistrate while

taking cognizance of an offence should have with him the

statement on oath of the complainant and if any witnesses are

present, their statements. The taking of cognizance under

Section 223 of the BNSS would come after the recording of

the sworn statement, at that juncture a notice is required to

be sent to the accused, as the proviso mandates grant of an

opportunity of being heard.

10. Therefore, the procedural drill would be this

way: A complaint is presented before the Magistrate under

Section 223 of the BNSS; on presentation of the complaint, it

would be the duty of the Magistrate/concerned Court to

examine the complainant on oath, which would be his sworn

statement and examine the witnesses present if any, and the

substance of such examination should be reduced into

writing. The question of taking of cognizance would not arise

at this juncture. The magistrate has to, in terms of the

proviso, issue a notice to the accused who is given an

opportunity of being heard. Therefore, notice shall be issued

to the accused at that stage and after hearing the accused,

take cognizance and regulate its procedure thereafter.”

8. In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed and the impugned

order dated 26.10.2024 is quashed. The court below is directed to

examine the complainant and his witnesses, if any, upon oath. The

accused, though issued with notice from the court below, shall be

afforded opportunity of hearing if the Magistrate decides to take

cognisance of the offences mentioned in the complaint after such

examination.

Having found that notice could not have been issued to the

prospective accused before taking cognisance, notice to respondents

2 to 10 in this Crl.MC is dispensed with.”

In case, said proposition, as recently observed by the Kerala

High Court (supra) is applied while interpreting the conjoint reading of

Section 210(1)(c), 211 & 212 of BNSS, 2023, it would be clear that

CRM-M-14743-2025 - 18 -

provision of granting opportunity of hearing of seeking inquiry or trial by

another Magistrate, is there with the summoned person by submitting his

grounds in the objection application. Immediately, on issuance of process

and his appearance on the basis of issued summons of his appearance only,

he or she (summoned person) can put up the plea of his/her side in the

objection application and simultaneously can seek inquiry, which obviously

includes fresh inquiry also.

Therefore, this Court does not find any such situation, whereby,

any of the right of the accused including the right of defense gets prejudiced

or infringed in any manner.

19. Still, as already observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Smt.

Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and others, [(1976) 3

SCC 736] and A.R. Antulay v. Ramdass Sriviniwas Nayak and another,

[(1984) 2 SCC 500], this Court finds that at this stage, accused have no locus

standi to raise objection to the magisterial power of taking cognizance under

Section 210(1)(c) of BNSS, 2023.

Broadly, it is culled out that magisterial power to take

cognizance of the offence(s), on reaching to a tentative conclusion by

satisfying itself of happening of some offence, such Magistrate is

empowered to issue process as per the prevailing proceeding or situation

before it, either u/s 210(1)(a) or (b) or (c) of BNSS, 2023, and at that stage,

summoned person/accused has no say to challenge the power of taking

cognizance. Undoubtedly, such a power is expected to be exercised after

acknowledging of happening of some offence and on having a reasonable

satisfaction based on some material already before it.

CRM-M-14743-2025 - 19 -

Therefore, plea of the petitioners that without recording of any

fresh evidence on oath etc., Magistrate is barred to take cognizance u/s

210(1)(c), who himself conducted inquiry u/s 196 of BNSS, 2023, is

misconceived and misplaced. Undoubtedly, impugned order deals with

enough material already available before the Magistrate.

Once Section 210(1)(c) authorizes the Magistrate to take

cognizance of the offence(s), without there being any special procedure

prescribed, next required step is to issue process of causing appearance

through summons or warrant, as the case may be, and by applying its own

discretion to that effect, irrespective of the nature of offence.

There is no doubt that in the present case, petitioners who

would appear in pursuance to the summons issued to them u/s 227(1)(b) of

BNSS, 2023, shall be afforded an opportunity of filing objection, as

prescribed u/s 211 of BNSS, 2023.

On filing of objections, if any, to the issuance of process, same

would be decided at the first instance and thereon, proceeding would

commence in view of Section 212 of BNSS, 2023.

20. In reference to the petitioners’ argument of non-compliance of

Section 231 of BNSS, 2023, it needs to be clarified that material and

documents, on which the prosecution is likely to rely [Section 231(iii) of

BNSS, 2023] is already available on record in the shape of complete inquiry

report u/s 196 of BNSS.

While examining the impugned summoning order, it is noticed

that in paragraph 10, a list of the relatives of the deceased and the number of

their depositions is mentioned. It includes description of the statements

CRM-M-14743-2025 - 20 -

made by four relatives of the deceased. Statements of 12 witnesses, i.e.,

police officials, Advocate Surya Kant Singla, three Medical Officers, one

Forensic Expert, two newspaper reports, and three Nodal Officers have also

been recorded.

Before reaching to the stage of Section 231 of BNSS, 2023, it

can’ be assumed that on reaching to an appropriate stage, provision of law

would not be complied with. As of now, it appears that prosecution would

definitely rely upon the statements recorded and material collected by the

Judicial Magistrate during the course of inquiry. But in the present case, the

accused have not even waited to reach to that stage and has approached this

Court prematurely without having any alleged grievance for violation

mentioned under Section 231(iii) of BNSS, 2023.

21. It is necessary to bear in mind that during the course of judicial

inquiry, statements of the witnesses have been recorded on oath, and this

part is so understood by this Court from the description of the statements,

which is given under para No.10 of the impugned order, where the

Magistrate has used the word “deposition” made by the witnesses.

In the midst of dictation, photocopies of some of the statements

of the witnesses, recorded before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate (JMIC,

Bathinda) during judicial inquiry, were called for, and same were received

through official e-mail Id on 29.04.2025. Thereupon, it is found that

respective witnesses got recorded their statements as ‘solemnly affirm (on

S.A.)’ and have also signed the same as ‘RO&AC’.

22. While proceeding further, it is also required to remined

ourselves that in the present case, cognizance has been taken on the basis of

CRM-M-14743-2025 - 21 -

the judicial inquiry conducted by the Magistrate u/s 196(2), which has a

wider scope than the one u/s 194(1) of BNSS, 2023. To support this view,

paras No.23 & 25 of the Tmt. R. Kasthuri’s case (supra), say as under: -

“23. But, in sub-section (1A) a different language has been

consciously used by the legislature. Here the legislature has not

confined the inquiry only into the cause of the death or cause for the

disappearance or cause for rape while in custody of the police. The

qualifying words like “inquiry into the cause of the death" as it is

found in sub-section (1) of Section 176 of the Code have been

consciously omitted in sub-section (1A) of Section 176 of the Code

thereby indicating that the inquiry by a Judicial Magistrate under

sub-section (1A) is not confined only to the cause of death or cause

for the disappearance or cause for rape. Thus, this inquiry has got a

wider scope. As per sub-section (2) of Section 176 of the Code, the

Magistrates, both the Executive Magistrate as well as the Judicial

Magistrates / Metropolitan Magistrates, shall record evidence on

oath. Sub-section (5) of section 176 of the Code is more elaborate

which states that the Judicial Magistrates / Metropolitan Magistrates

or the Executive Magistrates or Police Officers holding an inquiry or

investigation, as the case may be, under sub-section (1A) shall,

within twenty-four hours of such death, forward the body for post-

mortem.

24. xxx xx xxx xx

25. As I have already pointed out, the inquiry held by the Judicial

Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate, cannot be , at any stretch of

imagination equated to an investigation by the police. During

investigation, the police officer shall enjoy enormous powers and

skill to thoroughly investigate the matter and he has got lot of tools

also to investigate; whereas the Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan

Magistrate may not have such tools. In this regard, we may refer to

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radha Mohan Singh

alias Lal Saheb vs. State of U.P. (2006) 2 SCC 450. In that case, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned with the inquiries under sub-

sections (1) and (2) of Section 174 of the Code. In para 14 of the said

CRM-M-14743-2025 - 22 -

judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after having analyzed the

power of the police to investigate into a crime vis a vis the power of

the Executive Magistrate to hold inquest, held as follows:-

"14. The language of the aforesaid statutory provision is

plain and simple and there is no ambiguity therein. An

investigation under Section 174 is limited in scope and is

confined to the ascertainment of the apparent cause of death.

It is concerned with discovering whether in a given case the

death was accidental, suicidal or homicidal or caused by

animal and in what manner or by what weapon or

instrument the injuries on the body appear to have been

inflicted. It is for this limited purpose that persons

acquainted with the facts of the case are summoned and

examined under Section 175. The details of the overt acts are

not necessary to be recorded in the inquest report. The

question regarding the details as to how the deceased was

assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances

he was assaulted or who are the witnesses of the assault is

foreign to the ambit and scope of proceedings under Section

174. Neither in practice nor in law it is necessary for the

person holding the inquest to mention all these details."”

Once it is observed that judicial inquiry carries wider scope than

the inquiry conduced u/s 194 of BNSS, 2023, allegation of the petitioners

that the Magistrate, who conducted judicial inquiry could not himself

exercise the power of taking cognizance u/s 210(1)(c) of BNSS, 2023, is

also found to be baseless. Moreover, summoned accused would be free to

express his apprehension of any bias in the objection application, if any, is

thought to be filed u/s 211 of BNSS, 2023.

In view of this, such an apprehension or even submission is not

even addressable before this Court at this stage.

Other judgments relied upon by the petitioners’ counsel would

not be applicable for simple reason that petitioners have challenged the order

at premature stage, under misconception of recording of no statement, under

Chapter XVI, and also without even availing their right under Section 211 of

the BNSS, 2023.

CRM-M-14743-2025 - 23 -

23. In view of all the aforementioned discussion, I do not find any

irregularity in the order passed by the Ld. Magistrate, and therefore, observe

that the impugned order has been passed perfectly as per law.

24. Therefore, applying the aforesaid reasonings and getting

support from the observations made by Kerala High Court in Suby

Antony’s case(supra), as well as the Apex Court in Smt. Nagawwa’s case

(supra) and A.R. Antulay’s case(supra), it is observed that petitioners may

opt to exercise their right under Section 211 of the BNSS, 2023. If such

right is not exercised despite being apprised by the Court, the learned

Magistrate may proceed further, treating it as an indication that the

summoned accused have no objection to face proceedings before the same

Magistrate.

Accordingly, it is held that there is no infirmity in the impugned

order dated 18.02.2025, which appears to have been passed in accordance

with the provisions of the BNSS, 2023. Therefore, the instant petition is

dismissed with the above observations and with the liberty as mentioned

here-above.

(SANJAY VASHISTH)

JUDGE

July 01, 2025

J.Ram

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable: Yes/No