Lexpedia — Digital Smart Study
Latest JudgementBharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

Rakesh Kumar Chaturvedi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another, 2025

A Magistrate cannot issue notice under Section 223 BNSS without First recording sworn statements of the complainant and witnesses.

Allahabad High Court·4 August 2025
Rakesh Kumar Chaturvedi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another, 2025
Share:

Judgement Details

Court

Allahabad High Court

Date of Decision

4 August 2025

Judges

Justice Rajnish Kumar

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 210, BNSS Section 223, BNSS Section 226, BNSS

Facts of the Case

  • A complaint was filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow.

  • The Magistrate issued a notice to the applicant (Rakesh Kumar Chaturvedi) under Section 223 BNSS.

  • The notice was issued without first recording the statement of the complainant, and the statements of witnesses, if any, as required under BNSS.

  • The notice issued was procedurally defective:

    • It was a blank form.

    • Only the name of the accused was filled in.

    • Other relevant blanks were left unfilled.

  • The applicant approached the Allahabad High Court, challenging the legality of the notice.

Issues

  1. Can a Magistrate issue a notice to the accused under Section 223 BNSS without first recording sworn statements of the complainant and witnesses?

  2. Does the issuance of a blank and incomplete notice violate procedural due process and natural justice?

  3. What is the proper step-by-step procedure a Magistrate must follow under Sections 210, 223, and 226 BNSS before proceeding against the accused?

  4. Can cognizance be taken before affording the accused an opportunity to be heard?

Judgement

  • The High Court quashed the notice issued to the applicant.

  • Found that the Magistrate failed to follow the required procedural steps under the BNSS:

    • No prior examination on oath of complainant or witnesses.

    • Notice was issued prematurely.

    • The notice itself was defective, being a blank form with incomplete details.

  • The Court directed that such notices should not be issued in the future without recording required statements, Properly filling out and validating all details in the notice.

  • The Court clarified that issuance of notice must only happen after evaluating sworn statements, and when sufficient ground is found to proceed.

Held

  • A Magistrate cannot issue notice under Section 223 BNSS without First recording sworn statements of the complainant and witnesses.

  • The issuance of a blank and incomplete notice is procedurally invalid.

  • The Magistrate must strictly follow the sequence of procedures under Sections 210, 223, and 226 BNSS.

  • The impugned notice was set aside, but the Magistrate was permitted to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Analysis

  • The Court reaffirmed the procedural safeguards under BNSS meant to protect the rights of a prospective accused.

  • The decision emphasizes judicial discipline and structured procedure:

    • The Magistrate must first examine the complaint on oath.

    • Only then assess whether there is sufficient ground to proceed.

  • If no such ground exists, the complaint should be dismissed under Section 226 BNSS.

  • If sufficient grounds are found, then and only then should a notice be issued, allowing the accused an opportunity to be heard.

  • The ruling discourages the practice of “rubber-stamping” notices without due consideration.

  • The Court relied on prior judicial precedents for support:

    • Prateek Agarwal v. State of U.P. & Another (2024).

    • Basanagouda R. Patil v. Shivananda S. Patil – 2024.

    • Suby Antony v. Judicial First-Class Magistrate – 2025.

  • These cases all upheld that examination of complainant and witnesses is a mandatory precondition before issuing notice.

Rights of AccusedWitnessEvidence ActTrap EvidenceJustice