Introduction:

In an important ruling interpreting the procedural safeguards introduced under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that the proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS, which mandates granting an accused an opportunity of hearing before a Magistrate takes cognizance of a complaint, does not automatically require the complainant to furnish the entire body of evidence to the proposed accused at the preliminary stage itself.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Himanshu Joshi in the case of Vinay Pratap Singh v. Pushpendra Singh, MCRC-17776-2026. The Court set aside the orders of the trial court which had dismissed a private complaint solely on the ground that the complainant failed to provide all documentary and electronic evidence to the proposed accused before cognizance was taken.

The case arose out of a private complaint instituted by Vinay Pratap Singh, who alleged that he was engaged in the lawful business of supplying gravel through Hyva dumpers to a construction company. According to the complaint, on October 30, 2023, approximately 1800 litres of diesel had been procured for operational purposes and temporarily stored at his farmhouse because no fuel station was available nearby.

The complainant alleged that certain respondents, including Pushpendra Singh and two others, with whom he had prior business rivalry, pressured him to arrange an illegal advance payment of ₹1 crore and threatened to implicate him in false criminal cases if he failed to comply.

The complaint further alleged that on the same evening, the accused persons, accompanied by certain police officials, unlawfully entered the farmhouse, assaulted the complainant, intimidated him, and forcibly removed the stored fuel without following any lawful seizure procedure.

The complainant also asserted that a subsequent FIR registered at Mauganj Police Station alleging robbery against him was fabricated as a retaliatory measure to shield the illegal acts allegedly committed by the accused persons. To support his allegations, the complainant relied upon electronic material including CCTV footage and other digital evidence.

Based on these allegations, the complainant instituted a private complaint alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code relating to voluntarily causing hurt, obscene acts, criminal intimidation and common intention.

During the proceedings, an important procedural controversy emerged regarding the interpretation of Section 223(1) BNSS. The newly enacted provision requires a Magistrate to provide an opportunity of hearing to the accused before taking cognizance of an offence upon a complaint.

The complainant argued that while the proviso to Section 223(1) mandates hearing the accused, it does not compel the complainant to disclose the entirety of evidence and materials at the threshold stage before cognizance is even taken.

However, the Magistrate directed the complainant to furnish all documents and electronic evidence to the proposed accused persons, observing that meaningful hearing could not otherwise be granted. The trial court further warned that non-compliance with the direction would lead to dismissal of the complaint.

When the complainant failed to comply fully with the direction, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint on January 22, 2026 solely on that ground.

Aggrieved by the dismissal, the complainant approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 528 BNSS seeking intervention against what was described as an illegal and mechanical exercise of jurisdiction.

The case thus raised a significant legal question concerning the scope and extent of procedural rights available to proposed accused persons at the pre-cognizance stage under the newly introduced framework of the BNSS.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioner-complainant challenged the legality of the Magistrate’s orders directing supply of all documentary and electronic evidence to the proposed accused before cognizance and subsequently dismissing the complaint for non-compliance.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Jai Shukla argued that the trial court had fundamentally misconstrued the scope and purpose of the proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS.

The petitioner contended that the newly inserted proviso merely ensures compliance with principles of natural justice by requiring that an accused be granted an opportunity of hearing before cognizance is taken. However, the provision nowhere mandates complete disclosure of all evidentiary materials at the threshold stage.

According to the petitioner, compelling the complainant to furnish the entire evidence before cognizance effectively converts a preliminary inquiry into a mini-trial, which is not contemplated under criminal procedure law.

The petitioner argued that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate is only required to determine whether a prima facie case exists based on the complaint and supporting materials. The complainant cannot be compelled to reveal the entirety of evidence before the court even decides whether cognizance should be taken.

It was further argued that the trial court failed to appreciate the practical consequences of directing complete disclosure of electronic evidence and documents at such an early stage. According to the petitioner, this approach undermines the statutory framework and imposes burdens not contemplated by the legislature.

The petitioner also challenged the dismissal of the complaint as arbitrary and mechanical. It was submitted that the Magistrate completely ignored the seriousness of the allegations and failed to examine whether partial compliance with the order was sufficient.

The complainant emphasised that the case involved allegations of assault, criminal intimidation, unlawful seizure of property, abuse of police machinery and fabrication of criminal proceedings. Despite these serious allegations, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint solely on procedural grounds without examining the merits.

The petitioner further argued that the trial court’s approach defeated the purpose of criminal justice by prioritising technical compliance over substantive fairness and access to justice.

On the other hand, the respondents defended the Magistrate’s orders and contended that meaningful hearing under Section 223(1) BNSS necessarily requires disclosure of materials relied upon by the complainant.

The respondents argued that unless the proposed accused persons are made aware of the documentary and electronic evidence being relied upon, the statutory opportunity of hearing would become illusory and ineffective.

It was submitted that principles of natural justice demand adequate disclosure so that the proposed accused can effectively respond before the Magistrate decides whether cognizance should be taken.

The respondents further maintained that the Magistrate acted within jurisdiction in directing the complainant to supply relevant materials. According to them, the complainant’s failure to comply with the judicial direction justified dismissal of the complaint.

The State also defended the procedural authority exercised by the Magistrate and argued that the complainant could not selectively withhold evidence while simultaneously seeking criminal prosecution of the respondents.

At the same time, the High Court was called upon to examine whether the scope of hearing contemplated under Section 223(1) BNSS extends to mandatory disclosure of the entire prosecution material before cognizance.

Another important issue before the Court concerned the scope of interference under Section 528 BNSS, which empowers the High Court to exercise inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The petitioner argued that the dismissal order suffered from material irregularity and illegality warranting interference under Section 528, while the respondents contended that the Magistrate’s procedural directions did not justify invocation of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

Court’s Judgment:

The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders passed by the Magistrate, restored the complaint case, and directed the trial court to proceed in accordance with law.

Justice Himanshu Joshi began by examining the scope of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. The Court observed that inherent powers under Section 528 are intended to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice. However, for such jurisdiction to be exercised, the impugned order must suffer from illegality, perversity, or material irregularity.

Upon examining the facts of the case, the High Court found that the Magistrate’s order dated January 22, 2026 clearly reflected that the complaint had been dismissed solely because the complainant failed to supply documents and electronic evidence to the proposed accused persons.

The Court then turned to the interpretation of the proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS. Justice Joshi clarified that the legislative object behind the proviso is to ensure observance of principles of natural justice by granting the accused an opportunity of hearing before cognizance is taken on a private complaint.

However, the Court emphatically held that such opportunity of hearing does not automatically create an obligation upon the complainant to furnish the entire evidence at the threshold stage.

The Court 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 High Court noted that the stage of cognizance is fundamentally preliminary in nature. At this stage, the Magistrate is required only to assess whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding further. The Court observed that compelling disclosure of the entire evidence at such an early stage would distort the statutory scheme and unnecessarily burden the complainant.

Justice Joshi further held that the Magistrate failed to adopt a balanced and procedurally fair approach. Even assuming that some disclosure was necessary for effective hearing, the trial court ought to have examined whether partial compliance with the order was sufficient instead of mechanically dismissing the complaint altogether.

The Court strongly criticised the manner in which the complaint had been rejected without any consideration of the underlying allegations or broader procedural fairness.

The High Court observed:

“The mechanical dismissal of a complaint involving serious allegations, without examining the merits or procedural fairness in totality, results in miscarriage of justice.”

The Court emphasised that procedural safeguards must not be interpreted in a manner that defeats substantive justice. While the accused is undoubtedly entitled to fair hearing protections, such safeguards cannot be expanded beyond legislative intent so as to frustrate access to criminal remedies.

The judgment also reflects judicial caution regarding the implementation of newly introduced procedural provisions under the BNSS. The Court recognised that while the new criminal procedure framework introduces enhanced safeguards for accused persons, such provisions must be interpreted harmoniously with the broader objectives of criminal justice administration.

Importantly, the High Court did not completely reject the concept of disclosure at the pre-cognizance stage. Instead, it clarified that the extent and nature of disclosure must be proportionate and context-specific rather than absolute or mechanical.

Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the Magistrate committed material irregularity in dismissing the complaint solely on the ground of non-supply of documents and evidence.

Accordingly, the Court restored the complaint proceedings and directed the trial court to continue the matter in accordance with law while ensuring fairness to both parties.

The judgment is likely to assume considerable significance in shaping the interpretation of Section 223 BNSS across trial courts, particularly concerning the balance between rights of the accused and procedural practicality at the stage of cognizance.

It also underscores the principle that procedural innovations under the BNSS must be implemented in a manner that advances justice rather than obstructs legitimate adjudication of criminal complaints.