S.223 BNSS | Opportunity Of Hearing To Accused Does Not Mean They Must Be Given Entire Evidence Prior To Cognizance: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that while proviso to S.223 BNSS prescribes procedure followed by Magistrate before taking cognizance mandating accused be given an opportunity of hearing, however such an opportunity does not automatically translate into an obligation to furnish the entire evidence to the accused at threshold. Section 223 (1) states that 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. The first proviso states that provided that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard. The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi observed; "The proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS is intended to ensure that the accused is heard before cognizance is taken. However, such opportunity does not automatically translate into an obligation to supply entire evidence at the threshold stage, particularly when the proceedings are at the stage of consideration of cognizance".The applicant-complainant Vinay Prakash Singh, claimed that he was engaged in the lawful business of supplying gravel through Hyva dumpers to a construction company. Per the complaint, on October 30, 2023, approximately 1800 litres of diesel were procured for operational purposes and were temporarily stored at his farmhouse due to the absence of a nearby fuel station. The complainant alleged that because of prior business rivalry, the respondents, including Pushpendra Singh and two others, pressured him to arrange an illegal advance payment of ₹1 crore and threatened to implicate him in false criminal cases. It was further alleged that on the same evening, the respondents, along with certain police officials, unlawfully entered the farmhouse, assaulted the complainant, threatened him and forcibly took away the fuel without any lawful seizure process. The applicant also claimed that a subsequent FIR registered at the Police Station of Mauganj, alleging robbery, was fabricated as a counterblast to shield the illegal acts allegedly committed against him. He relied upon electronic evidence, including CCTV footage, to challenge the prosecution's narrative. The complainant instituted a private complaint alleging offences for voluntarily causing hurt (Section 323), obscene songs and action (Section 294), criminal intimidation (Section 506) and actions done in furtherance of common intention (Section 34) of IPC. During the proceedings, the applicant moved an application under Section 223(1) of BNSS, contending that while the proviso grants an opportunity of hearing to the accused before cognisance, it does not mandate the supply of the entire evidence at that stage. However, by order of January 17, 2026, the magistrate directed the complainant to supply all documents and electronic evidence to the proposed accused, observing that without such disclosure a meaningful hearing could not be afforded. The court further directed the non complaince would result in dismissal of the complaint. Subsequently, on January 22, 2026, the complaint was dismissed solely for failure to comply with said directions. Aggrieved, the applicant filed before the High Court under Section 528 BNSS, which empowers the High Court to quash malicious FIRs or criminal proceedings. The court noted that the scope of interference under Section 528 is to prevent abuse of process of law, but for the applicability of the same, the court needs to examine whether the impugned order suffers from illegality, perversity or material irregularity. The court noted that the order of January 22, 2026, reflected that the complaint was solely dismissed because of the non-supply of documents. The bench emphasised that the proviso to Section 223(1) of BNSS is intended to ensure principles of natural justice are followed, meaning that the accused gets an opportunity of hearing before cognisance is taken.However, the bench also highlighted that such an opportunity does not automatically translate into a obligation to supply the entire evidence at the threshold stage of cognisance. The Court noted that the Trial Court erred and ought to have examined whether partial compliance with the impugned order was sufficient. The court held, "The mechanical dismissal of a complaint involving serious allegations, without examining the merits or procedural fairness in totality, results in miscarriage of justice". Thus, the court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order. The court further restored the complaint case and directed the Trial Court to proceed in accordance with the law. Case Title: Vinay Pratap Singh v Pushpendra Singh, MCRC-17776-2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 183For Petitioner: Advocate Jai Shukla Click here to read/download the Order

S.223 BNSS | Opportunity Of Hearing To Accused Does Not Mean They Must Be Given Entire Evidence Prior To Cognizance: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

S.223 BNSS | Opportunity Of Hearing To Accused Does Not Mean They Must Be Given Entire Evidence Prior To Cognizance: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers