01Facts
A truck bearing registration No. CH01-TB-5008, involved in an accident in which its driver died, was seized during investigation of FIR No. 47 dated 02.04.2024 registered at Police Station Bond Kalan. The stone slates loaded in the truck were released pursuant to a court order, but a subsequent order directing release of the truck bore only “Sd/-” and lacked the Presiding Officer’s signature.
¶ 2–4 · pp. 1–3During consideration of the untraced report in the accident case, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Charkhi Dadri, was informed that the truck had allegedly been released illegally without a valid court order. The Magistrate directed registration of appropriate proceedings, leading to FIR No. 238 dated 18.09.2024 at Police Station City Dadri concerning the alleged fabrication of a judicial order.
¶ 5–6 · pp. 3–4The investigation was monitored by the Court, but the Investigating Officer, ASI Kuldeep, allegedly failed to make effective progress despite repeated directions and opportunities. On 02.07.2025, the Judicial Magistrate submitted a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging offences under Sections 198, 199(b) and 210 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).
¶ 7 · pp. 4–6The complaint was made over to another Judicial Magistrate, who summoned the petitioner on 29.08.2025. The petitioner invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) seeking quashing of the complaint and summoning order.
¶ 8–9 · p. 602Issues
i.1. Whether previous sanction under Section 218 of the BNSS was required before taking cognizance against the petitioner, a public servant, for acts allegedly committed while discharging his official duties.
¶ 17–25 · pp. 8–12ii.2. Whether the Judicial Magistrate who took cognizance lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
¶ 17 · pp. 8, 12–13iii.3. Whether the allegations in the complaint disclosed a prima facie case under Sections 198, 199(b) and 210 of the BNS, warranting issuance of summons, or whether the proceedings were liable to be quashed under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.
¶ 17, 27–35 · pp. 8–1703Law Applied
The Court applied Section 218 of the BNSS, which generally bars cognizance of an offence allegedly committed by a protected public servant in the discharge of official duty without prior sanction; however, its proviso expressly excludes the requirement of sanction for offences under, inter alia, Section 199 of the BNS.
¶ 18–19, 24–25 · pp. 9–12The Court distinguished Suneeti Toteja v. State of U.P. and G.C. Manjunath v. Seetaram, which concerned the protection available to public servants under the sanction provisions of the CrPC.
¶ 20–23 · pp. 10–11On territorial jurisdiction, the Court held that Judicial Magistrates in the district possessed jurisdiction in accordance with the applicable notification.
¶ 26 · pp. 12–13For quashing, the Court relied on Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. State of Karnataka, M/s Balaji Traders v. State of U.P. and Muskan v. Ishaan Khan, reiterating that quashing is an exceptional remedy, allegations must ordinarily be taken at face value, and the Court should not conduct a mini-trial or assess the reliability of evidence at the initial stage.
¶ 29–34 · pp. 14–17Provisions in the judgment · 42 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528Section 218
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 Section 127
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 18 provisions
Section 64Section 65Section 66Section 68Section 69Section 70Section 71Section 74Section 75Section 76Section 77Section 78Section 79Section 143Section 198Section 199Section 200Section 210Indian Penal Code, 1860 16 provisions
Section 34Section 192Section 197Section 202Section 204Section 218Section 326Section 354Section 358Section 468Section 471Section 500Section 501Section 502Section 506Section 509Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 155Section 156Section 197Section 482
Police Act, 1861 Section 170
04Reasoning
The Court held that the sanction objection was unavailable because the prosecution included Section 199 of the BNS, for which the proviso to Section 218 of the BNSS expressly dispenses with prior sanction.
¶ 23–25 · pp. 11–12The reliance on Suneeti Toteja and G.C. Manjunath was therefore misplaced. The jurisdictional objection also failed because the complaint had been submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and made over to another Magistrate having district-wide territorial jurisdiction under the applicable notification.
¶ 26 · pp. 12–13As to the merits, the complaint alleged prolonged inaction by the petitioner in investigating serious allegations concerning fabrication of a court order and illegal release of a seized vehicle, despite repeated judicial directions and opportunities.
¶ 7, 27–28 · pp. 4–6, 13–14Whether the petitioner had acted bona fide, diligently, or in accordance with his statutory duties was a matter for trial and could not be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. Since the allegations, if accepted at face value, disclosed a prima facie case and did not fall within the recognised categories for quashing, no exceptional ground for interference was made out.
¶ 28–35 · pp. 13–1705Holding
The Court answered all three issues against the petitioner. It held that prior sanction was not required in view of the statutory exception relating to Section 199 of the BNS; the Magistrate possessed territorial jurisdiction; and the complaint disclosed a prima facie case warranting trial.
¶ 35–37 · pp. 17–18The petition under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking quashing of Complaint No. COMI-45-2025 and the summoning order dated 29.08.2025 was dismissed.
¶ 35–37 · pp. 17–18The Court clarified that its observations would not prejudice the petitioner’s defence on factual issues at trial.
¶ 38 · p. 18Original Court PDF
KuldeepvsState Of Haryana And Another
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
