Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI
Mahendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court hears counsel for applicants. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. fir and complaint concerning the same incident. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. summoning and statement recording timeline. (Para 5) |
| 4. court sets aside order and remits case. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. trial court to complete formalities in two months. (Para 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT :
PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.
1. Heard Sri Puneet Bhadauria along with Hukum Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. Earlier, in the present application, this Court has passed an order dated 05.01.2026, paragraph Nos. 1 to 11 of the same are delineated below for ready reference:
“1. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he has filed the instant application under Section 528 BNSS with the relief which has been mentioned in the prayer clause of the application.
2. The relief which has been mentioned in the application is delineated below:-
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside the Summoning order dated 20.08.2025 whereby, the Applicant Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 have summoned under Section
The court held that failure to provide an opportunity for hearing before summoning accused is a violation of procedural rights and Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Magistrate is not required to record detailed reasons when issuing summons in response to a police report, provided there are sufficient grounds for proceeding.
The court established that a right to hearing under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita applies, requiring courts to afford such hearing before taking cognizance of offences against the accused.
The requirement for the accused to be heard before taking cognizance of an offence is now mandatory under Section 223 of the B.N.S.S., marking a critical procedural safeguard.
The court emphasized the necessity for a Magistrate to provide the accused an opportunity to be heard before taking cognizance of complaints as mandated by the BNSS.
The court established that a magistrate must provide an opportunity for the accused to be heard before taking cognizance of criminal complaints, ensuring adherence to procedural justice under Section....
A magistrate must adhere to procedural safeguards, including providing the accused a hearing before taking cognizance, as mandated by Section 223 of BNSS; failure to comply renders the cognizance ord....
The court emphasized that under Section 223(1) of BNSS, a Magistrate must examine the complainant and provide the accused an opportunity to be heard before taking cognizance of an offence.
The provision requiring an accused to be heard before cognisance is a mandatory, substantive right. Cognisance orders passed without such a hearing are void ab initio, and ministerial registration of....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
