01Facts
The complainant (Opposite Party No. 2) filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 06.01.2024 regarding an incident dated 27.05.2021
¶ 3, 11An FIR was registered on 03.03.2024 under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC
¶ 4While the investigation was ongoing, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, came into force on 01.07.2024
¶ 11On 07.08.2024, the Crime Branch prepared a Final Report (FR) stating no offence was committed
¶ 5The complainant filed a Protest Petition on 03.04.2025, which the Magistrate treated as a Complaint Case under the Cr.P.C., subsequently summoning the applicants on 22.08.2025
¶ 7, 11The applicants challenged the summoning order, arguing that since the Protest Petition was filed after 01.07.2024, the procedure under Section 223 of the BNSS (which requires hearing the accused before taking cognizance) should have been followed
¶ 8, 902Issues
i.1. Whether a criminal proceeding initiated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) before the enforcement of the BNSS must continue under the old Code even if subsequent stages (like a Protest Petition or cognizance) occur after the new law's commencement
¶ 8, 16ii.2. Whether the "opportunity of being heard" mandated under Section 223 of the BNSS applies to proceedings that originated from an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed prior to July 1, 2024
¶ 8, 1603Law Applied
Repeal and Savings clause under Section 531(2)(a) of the BNSS, 2023, which stipulates that any appeal, application, trial, inquiry, or investigation pending immediately before the commencement of the BNSS shall be disposed of in accordance with the Cr.P.C., 1973
¶ 14Precedent H.S. Bains v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) (1980) 4 SCC 631, establishing that a Magistrate may treat a Protest Petition against a police report as a complaint and proceed under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C.
¶ 12Principle from Parvinder Singh v. Enforcement Directorate (2026) SCC OnLine SC 903, which clarifies that Section 531(2)(a) is intended to ensure prospective application and prevent "piecemeal" application of procedural laws
¶ 17-18Provisions in the judgment · 13 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 223Section 528Section 531
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 376Section 506
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 154Section 156Section 173Section 190Section 200Section 202Section 203Section 204
04Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the criminal proceedings were set in motion on 06.01.2024 via an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which predates the enforcement of the BNSS
¶ 12, 16Under Section 531(2)(a) of the BNSS, since the "investigation" was pending on 01.07.2024, the entire proceeding is "saved" and must be conducted under the Cr.P.C. as if the BNSS had not come into force
¶ 14-15The Court noted that the Protest Petition and the subsequent inquiry (examination of witnesses under Sections 200/202 Cr.P.C.) were logical continuations of the original proceeding initiated under the old Code
¶ 15The Court rejected the applicants' contention that Section 223 of the BNSS should apply, holding that the "laudable objective" of the savings clause is to ensure a proceeding initiated under the Cr.P.C. reaches its "logical conclusion" under the same Code to avoid procedural confusion
¶ 17-1805Holding
The Court held that since the proceedings originated before 01.07.2024, the Magistrate correctly followed the Cr.P.C. procedure, and the requirement of hearing the accused under Section 223 of the BNSS was not applicable
¶ 16, 19The application under Section 528 BNSS (inherent powers) was dismissed, and the summoning order dated 22.08.2025 was upheld
¶ 20Original Court PDF
Nishant Singh And 3 OthersvsState Of U.P. And Another
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
