Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest – March 2025

Supreme Court:Supreme Court Mandates Preliminary Inquiry Before FIR On Certain Offences Related To Speech & ExpressionsCase Title – Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of GujaratCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362With the aim of curbing frivolous FIRs against speeches, writings and artistic expressions, the Supreme Court on Friday mandated that a preliminary inquiry must be conducted before lodging the FIR, if the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment between three to seven years.The Court held so after referring to Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Section 173(3) provides that for offences punishable with imprisonment between three to seven years, the police may conduct a preliminary enquiry within 14 days to establish a prima facie case, with prior approval from a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP).S.200 CrPC/S.227 BNSS | Supreme Court Asks Magistrates To Ascertain Truth Of Complaints Before Summoning AccusedCase Title: REKHA SHARAD USHIR versus SAPTASHRUNGI MAHILA NAGARI SAHKARI PATSANSTA LTD.Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 355The Supreme Court on quashed a complaint filed for the offence of cheque dishonour under the Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) after noting that the complainant suppressed material facts and abused the judicial process by withholding loan documents.Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Oka emphasized that the law cannot be set into motion by issuing a process on a complaint without satisfying that there were sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. The Court underscored the Magistrate's duty to apply its mind before setting criminal law into motion.For 'Promoting Enmity' Offence, Words Must Not Be Judged On Standards Of Insecure People Or Those Seeing Criticism As Threat : Supreme CourtCase Title – Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of GujaratCitation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362The Supreme Court on held that for an offence under section 196 (promoting enmity between groups) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita alleged on the basis of written or spoken words, the standard to judge effect of the words should be that of a reasonable, firm, individual rather than an insecure person.High Courts:Allahabad High Court: Tearing Pages Of 'Manusmriti' During Live TV Debate Prima Facie A Cognizable Offence: Allahabad HC Denies Relief To RJD SpokespersonCase title: Priyanka Bharti vs. State Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 78Observing that act of tearing pages of 'Manusmriti' in a live TV debate prima facie amounts to a cognizable offence, the Allahabad High Court denied relief to Rashtriya Janata Dal Spokeperson and Jawaharlal Nehru University Ph.D. student Priyanka Bharti by refusing to quash an FIR lodged against her.Bharti has been charged under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for allegedly tearing a few pages of Manusmriti during a live debate organized by the news channels India TV and TV9 Bharatvarsh, where she was participating as a spokesperson for the RJD.Andhra Pradesh High Court:Provisions Of S.47(1) Of BNSS Are Mandatory, Violation Will Render Arrest & Subsequent Detention Invalid: Andhra Pradesh High CourtCase Name: Motakatla Jhansi Vani Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and OthersThe Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the provisions of Section 47(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) are mandatory and peremptory, and a violation of this provision can only result in a declaration that the arrest and subsequent detention are invalid.Delhi High Court: S.450 BNSS | Court Of Chief Judicial Magistrate Can't Transfer A Case Either Suo Moto Or On Any Application: Delhi High CourtTitle: SUDESH CHHIKARA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANRCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 335The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot transfer a case from one Court or another either suo moto or upon an application being moved to that effect.“…under Section 410 Cr.PC. and Section 450 BNSS the power conferred upon the Chief Judicial Magistrate is only administrative in nature. The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot “transfer” a case from one Court or another upon an application being moved or suo moto,” Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held.Writ Petition For Quashing Of FIR Can't Serve As Substitute For Availing Remedies Under BNSS: Delhi High CourtTitle: VIJAY KUMAR @ CHAMPION v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANRCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 317The Delhi High Court has recently observed that a writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking quashing of an FIR cannot serve as a substitute for availing remedies specifically provided under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for securing personal liberty.Justice Sanjeev Narula made the observation while dismissing a plea moved by an accused in an extortion case seeking to restrain the Delhi Police from effecting his arrest.Gauhati High Court: Informing 'Grounds Of Arrest' To Accused...

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest – March 2025

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags