Failure to follow mandatory procedure under Section 215 BNSS before convicting public servant for disobedience vitiates proceedings.

The petitioner, a Station House Officer (SHO), was directed by a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) to submit an investigation report in a complaint case (UNC No. 318/2023).

Despite repeated directions, the report was not filed.

On 29.05.2025, the trial court initiated proceedings under Section 384 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for an alleged offence under Section 210 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

When the SHO failed to provide a written explanation by 16.06.2025, the JMFC summarily convicted him and imposed a fine of Rs. 100/-.

This order was subsequently affirmed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, in a criminal revision.

The petitioner then moved the High Court challenging the legality of the summary conviction.

1. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the petitioner without following the mandatory procedure for trial and framing of accusations as prescribed under the BNSS.

2. Whether the essential ingredients of Section 210 BNS (intentional disobedience by a public servant) were established.

3. Whether the prosecution was sustainable in light of the procedural safeguards under Section 215 BNSS regarding offences affecting the administration of justice.

The Court primarily applied Section 210 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalizes a public servant’s intentional disobedience of legal directions to cause injury.

It relied heavily on Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (equivalent to Section 195 CrPC), which mandates that prosecution for administration-of-justice offences necessitates a formal written complaint by the concerned Court.

Procedurally, the Court emphasized the necessity of a fair trial under the BNSS, including the framing of accusations and recording of evidence.

It further cited Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah regarding the scope of Section 215 BNSS.

and Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab to establish that non-compliance with these mandatory procedural bars renders a prosecution void ab initio.

The High Court reasoned that the JMFC bypassed fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence by convicting the petitioner through a "miscellaneous criminal case" without framing formal charges or recording evidence.

The court observed that the mere issuance of a notice for explanation is not a substitute for the statutory procedure of a trial.

Furthermore, the court found that the elements of Section 210 BNS were missing, as there was no evidence of "intentional" disobedience or "intent to cause injury".

a mere delay in submitting a report does not automatically equate to a criminal offence.

Crucially, the trial court failed to follow Section 215 BNSS, which requires the court to form an opinion that prosecution is "expedient in the interest of justice" before initiating a formal complaint.

The High Court concluded that the mechanical affirmation by the revisional court perpetuated these procedural illegalities.

It held that a summary conviction of a public servant without a proper trial and without adhering to the safeguards of Section 215 BNSS is legally unsustainable.

The Court remanded the case to the JMFC to proceed afresh in accordance with the law, ensuring a fair hearing.

All consequential directions, including the deduction of the fine from the petitioner’s salary and service record entries, were annulled.