S. 225 BNSS | Magistrate Must Conduct Inquiry Or Order Probe Before Proceeding Against Accused Outside Jurisdiction : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a Magistrate must conduct an inquiry or direct an investigation under Section 225 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before proceeding against an accused residing outside the territorial jurisdiction. In other words, if a person is being accused in a criminal complaint and lives outside the jurisdictional area of the court, the Magistrate cannot immediately issue a summons without following the mandate of Section 225 BNSS, the Court held. “…it is mandatory on the part of the Magistrate to press into service Section 225, upon satisfying himself that the accused person is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises jurisdiction.”, observed a bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B Varale, while setting aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgment to the extend it upheld the magistrate's decision to proceed against the accused without following the mandate of Section 225.Section 225 of BNSS provides that upon receipt of a complaint of an offence where the Magistrate is authorised to take cognizance, if the accused resides outside the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction, the Magistrate must either inquire into the complaint himself or direct an investigation.In this case, the appellant challenged proceedings initiated before a Magistrate on two principal grounds, i.e., the Magistrate lacked territorial jurisdiction, and the mandatory procedure under Section 225 BNSS was not followed before invoking powers under Section 223 (examination of complaint). While the jurisdictional objection was raised before the High Court, it was not adjudicated. The High Court also upheld the proceedings without insisting on compliance with Section 225, prompting the appeal before the Supreme Court. Allowing the appeal, the Court observed that the High Court erred in ignoring the non-compliance of Section 225 BNSS, while issuing process against the Appellant, who was admittedly living outside the territorial jurisdiction of the magistrate. “…the finding on issue No.2 by the High Court stands set aside, as accepting the said contention would make Section 225 as otiose and redundant.”, the court said. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, while remitting the case back to the High Court to decide upon the issue of the jurisdiction of the magistrate. Cause Title: RAJEEV MEHTA @ RAJIV KISHOR KIRTILAL MEHTA VERSUS PARAM BIR SINGHCitation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 411Click here to download orderAppearance: For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tishampati Sen, Adv. Ms. Riddhi Sancheti, AOR Mr. Dikshat Mehra, Adv. Mr. Mohnish Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Anurag Anand, Adv. Mr. Mukul Kulhari, Adv. For Respondent(s) :Mr. Devdutt Kamat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Adv. Mr. Utsav Trivedi, Adv. Mr. Arpit Gupta, AOR Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, Adv.

S. 225 BNSS | Magistrate Must Conduct Inquiry Or Order Probe Before Proceeding Against Accused Outside Jurisdiction : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Tags