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

Supreme CourtS.256 CrPC/S.279 BNSS | Absence Of Complainant Will Not Always Lead To Acquittal Of Accused : Supreme CourtCase Title: RANJIT SARKAR VS. RAVI GANESH BHARDWAJ AND OTHERSCitation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 369The Supreme Court held that the non-appearance of a complainant will not always result in the acquittal of the accused as per Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding to Section 279 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita). The Court interpreted Section 256 Cr.P.C. to mean that acquittal under this section is warranted only when the complainant is absent on the date which was set for the appearance of the accused. If the date was set for a purpose other than the appearance of the accused, the absence of the complainant on such a date will not warrant the acquittal of the accused. S.482 CrPC/S.528 BNSS | No Absolute Bar On High Court Quashing FIR At Nascent Stage Of Investigation: Supreme CourtCase Title – Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of GujaratCitation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362The Supreme Court recently observed that there is no absolute rule preventing a High Court from quashing an FIR by exercising its power under Section 482 of CrPC and its equivalent Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), merely because the investigation is at a nascent stage.Charges Framed Cannot Be Deleted Invoking S.216 CrPC/S.239 BNSS: Supreme CourtCase Title: DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE VERSUS RAJ KUMAR ARORA & ORS.Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 434The Supreme Court (April 17) held that the power under Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) cannot be invoked to delete charges already framed against an accused, as it can only be used to add or alter the existing charges.The analogous provision to Section 216 CrPC in the BNSS is Section 239.“We are in agreement with the view that once charges have been framed by the Trial Court in exercise of the powers under Section 228 CrPC, the accused cannot thereafter be discharged, be it through an exercise of the powers under Sections 227 or 216 CrPC. It is reiterated that the language of Section 216 CrPC provides only for the addition and alteration of charge(s) and not for the deletion or discharge of an accused. If the Legislature had intended to empower the Trial Court with the power to delete a charge at that stage, the same would have been expressly and unambiguously stated. Therefore, at such a stage of the trial, the accused must necessarily either be convicted or acquitted of the charges that were so framed against him. No shortcuts must be allowed.”, the Court observed. The Court approved the Allahabad High Court's decision Dev Narain v. State of U.P. and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine All 3216, where it was held that a power to delete charges is not conferred on the Court under Section 216 Cr.P.C.Supreme Court Rejects Plea That S.498A IPC/S.84 BNS Violates Article 14, Says Allegations Of Misuse VagueCase Details: Janshruti v. Union of India and Ors.Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 464The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking inter-alia balanced protection for all parties in matrimonial cases, mandatory preliminary investigation before filing of S.498A IPC/domestic violence cases and legal protection against false complaints.A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter.Dismissing the PIL, the bench observed, "we see no reason to interfere with the legislative policy/mandate behind Section 498A IPC, now read as Section 84 of the BNS. The plea that such provision is violative of Art.14 is wholly misconceived and misdirected. Art.15 of the Constitution explicitly empowers to enact a special law for protection of women, children...The allegation that the provision is being misused is vague and evasive, as no opinion with respect thereto can be formed while exercising jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. Suffice it to observe that such an allegation can be examined on case-to-case basis."Does S.223 BNSS (Hearing Of Accused Pre-Cognizance) Apply To PMLA Cases If Investigation Began Before July 1, 2024? Supreme Court To DecideCase Details: Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of EnforcementThe Supreme Court remarked that Section 223 (Examination of complainant) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides that the accused must be given an opportunity to be heard before Magistrate takes cognizance of a complaint, is a beneficial provision to prevent unnecessary prosecutions.Section 223 of the BNSS mandates that the Magistrate must examine the complainant and witnesses on oath. The first proviso states that no cognizance shall be taken without giving the accused an opportunity to be heard. Section 223 of BNSS replaces Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which did not mandate giving the accused an opportunity to be heard before cognizance was taken.“This is actually a very salutary provision to avoid unnecessary prosecutions”, Justice Abhay...

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

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags