Table of Contents

The following landmark judgments explain the legal principles governing Complaints to Magistrate under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). These decisions deal with the examination of complainants and witnesses, inquiry under Sections 223 and 225 of BNSS, second complaints, inquiry where the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, and the duties of the Magistrate before issuing process.

1. Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar (2017) 3 SCC 528)

Held: It was held that the requirement of conducting inquiry or directing investigation under Section 202 (now Section 225 of BNSS) before issuing process is not an empty formality. No specific mode or manner of inquiry is provided in Section 202 (now Section 225 of BNSS). In inquiry envisaged under Section 202 (now Section 225 of BNSS) the witnesses are examined, whereas under Section 200 (now Section 223 of BNSS), examination of complainant only is necessary with the option of examining the witnesses, if any.

2. Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 2023 SC 228)

Held: It is a well-established principle that when summoning an accused residing outside the Court's jurisdiction, as per the amendment to Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 225 of BNSS), the Magistrate is required to conduct an inquiry personally or direct an investigation by a police officer or any other designated officer to determine whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against the accused.

3. Govind Prasad Kejriwal v. State of Bihar (AIR 2020 SC 1079)

Held: During an inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 225 of BNSS), the Magistrate must examine:

  1. Whether a prima facie case is established.
  2. Whether the criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of the legal process.
  3. Whether the matter is strictly of a civil nature.
  4. Whether a civil dispute is being misrepresented as a criminal case.

4. Manhari Bhai v. Shailesh Bhai (2012) 10 SCC 517)

Held: Supreme Court held that Section 202 of the Code (now Section 225 of BNSS) has following two objects:

  • It enables the Magistrate to scrutinize the allegations in the complaint with a view to prevent harassment to the accused.
  • It helps the Magistrate to find out whether there is some material to support the allegations in the complaint.

5. Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru (2010) 2 SCC 631)

Held: It was held that the order of dismissal of complaint is neither an order of acquittal nor an order of discharge, therefore, principle incorporated under Section 300 (now Section 337 of BNSS) is not applicable. The Supreme Court held that only in exceptional circumstances the second complaint can be entertained. These circumstances may be:

  • Previous order of dismissal was passed on incomplete record;
  • Previous order was result of misunderstanding of the nature of complaint or was manifestly absurd or unjust;
  • Where the new facts are adduced in second complaint which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on record in the previous proceedings.

6. Rekha Sharad Ushir v. Saptashrungi Nagrari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. (2025 INSC 399)

Held: Recording the complainant's statement on oath under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 223 of BNSS) is not an empty formality. The object of recording the complainant's statement and witnesses, if any, is to ascertain the truth. The learned Magistrate is duty-bound to put questions to the complainant to elicit the truth. The examination is necessary to enable the Court to satisfy itself whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. After considering the complaint, the documents produced along with the complaint, and the statements of the complainant and witnesses, if any, the learned Magistrate has to apply his mind to ascertain whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. If he is satisfied that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused.

7. Rosy & Another v. State of Kerala & Others (AIR 2000 SC 637)

Held: It was held that where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the direction of investigation by the police officer is not permissible and he is required to hold inquiry by himself. During that inquiry he may decide to examine the witnesses on oath. The reason obviously is that in a private complaint, which is required to be committed to the Sessions Court for trial, it would safeguard the interest of the accused and he would not be taken by surprise at the time of trial and it would reveal the version of the witnesses whose list is required to be filed by complainant under section 204(2) (now Section 227(2) of BNSS) before issuance of process. The irregularity or non-compliance thereof would not vitiate the further proceeding in all cases. A prejudice is caused or is likely to be caused by not following the earlier stage and he should point out how such prejudice, he is precluded from raising such objection at the later stage.