Judgment & Order

This petition under Section 528 of BNSS is filed for quashing of the order dated 12.07.2024 passed by Ld CJM, Agartala, West Tripura in CR 209 of 2024 on the ground of non-compliance of Section 223 of BNSS.

02. Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. K. Deb appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also heard Learned Addl. P.P. appearing on behalf of the State-respondent. Although one Learned Counsel on 10.07.2026 appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2. But at the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of respondent No.2.

03. Taking part in the hearing, Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complainant, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited filed one complaint-petition before the Court of Learned CJM, West Tripura, Agartala on 12.07.2024 against the present petitioners and others under Sections 61(2)/314/316/318/320/321/323/324 of BNS. But Learned CJM on that day without affording any opportunity to the respondent-accused persons directly took cognizance of offence against the present petitioners and others which was impermissible in view of the provision provided under Section 223 of BNSS. It was further submitted that on the same day Learned Trial Court also transferred the case to the Court of Learned J.M. 1st Class, Court No.3, Agartala, West Tripura. So, according to Learned Counsel for the petitioners the order passed by Learned CJM suffers from illegality and the same needs to be interfered with. In support of his contention, Learned Counsel relied upon one citation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Kushal Kumar Agarwal vs. Directorate of Enforcement dated 09.05.2025 reported in (2025) Supreme (SC) 919 and submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the order needs to be interfered with and set aside.

04. On the other hand, Learned Addl. P.P. appearing on behalf of the State-respondent submitted that there was no irregularity and illegality in the said order passed by Learned CJM as because Learned CJM did not record the statement of the complainant and witnesses rather transferred the case to another Court for disposal. So, at this stage, there is no scope to interfere with the said order passed by Learned CJM and urged for dismissal of this petition. In support of his contention, Learned Counsel also relied upon two citations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raghubans Dubey vs. State of Bihar reported in (1967) SC OnLine SC 3 and also relied upon another citation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal vs. Manmal Bhutoria and Others reported in (1977) 3 SCC 440 and submitted that in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court there was no illegality in the order passed by Learned CJM. Considered.

05. The Criminal Procedure Code has been repealed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter, referred to as BNSS) which came into force on 1st July, 2024. The present complaint-petition was filed before the Court of Learned CJM on 12.07.2024 i.e. after the introduction of the new enactment on 01.07.2024. Now, before answering to the relevant questions regarding cognizance of offence let us narrate herein below the erstwhile provision of Cr.P.C. or relevant provision of the BNSS to give a clear idea about the subject matters in issue. Chapter- XV of Cr.P.C. deals with ‘complaints to Magistrate’. Now for the sake of convenience, let us reproduce herein below the relevant provision of Section 200 of Cr.P.C. which provides as under:

200. A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate;

Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses-

a. if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the comp