Magistrate's Overreach Checked: Supreme Court Mandates Inquiry Under S. 225 BNSS for Distant Accused

In a pivotal ruling on criminal procedure, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that Magistrates cannot summon or proceed against an accused residing outside their territorial jurisdiction without first conducting an inquiry or investigation under Section 225 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) . A bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale allowed the appeal of Rajeev Mehta (also known as Rajiv Kishor Kirtilal Mehta) against Param Bir Singh, setting aside part of a Punjab & Haryana High Court order and remanding the territorial jurisdiction issue for fresh consideration.

This decision, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 411 , underscores procedural safeguards in the new criminal laws, ensuring accused persons aren't hauled into distant courts without verification.

From Mumbai to Magistrate: The Cross-Jurisdictional Clash

The dispute traces back to proceedings before a Trial Court, likely in Punjab or Haryana, where respondent Param Bir Singh filed a complaint against appellant Rajeev Mehta, a Mumbai resident. Mehta challenged the summons issued under Section 223 BNSS , raising two core issues:

  1. Territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court.
  2. Compliance with Section 225 BNSS , which requires Magistrates to verify an accused's residence outside their jurisdiction before issuing process.

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana, in its March 23, 2026 order in CRMM No. 15721/2026, addressed only the second issue, upholding the Magistrate's action without invoking Section 225. Mehta appealed via SLP (Crl.) No. 5873/2026, argued by senior advocates including Kapil Sibal and Gautam Narayan.

Appellant's Shield: Mandatory Inquiry Ignored

Mehta's counsel argued that Section 225 BNSS is a prerequisite for exercising powers under Section 223 BNSS . They emphasized that the appellant resides in Mumbai, beyond the Magistrate's local limits, making it "mandatory on the part of the Magistrate to press into service Section 225" upon receiving the complaint. Skipping this renders the provision " otiose and redundant ," they contended.

On territorial jurisdiction, they urged the High Court to rule explicitly, as the Magistrate must confirm jurisdiction before proceeding.

Respondent's Pushback: Proceed Without Delay?

Param Bir Singh's team, led by senior advocate Devdutt Kamat, defended the High Court's view, likely stressing the complaint's merits and urging minimal procedural hurdles. However, the Supreme Court found "considerable force" in the appellant's submissions on Section 225, without delving into factual merits.

Decoding the Statute: Why Section 225 Can't Be Bypassed

The Court dissected Section 225 BNSS , which activates "upon receipt of a complaint... upon satisfying himself that the accused person is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises jurisdiction." It mandates an inquiry or police investigation to verify residence before summons.

Dismissing the High Court's approach, the bench held: "accepting the said contention would make Section 225 as otiose and redundant ." No precedents were cited, but the ruling reinforces statutory plain reading in the BNSS framework, replacing CrPC equivalents.

The Court noted Section 223 BNSS applies only to Magistrates with jurisdiction, remanding the territorial issue: "the Magistrate will have to satisfy himself that he does, in fact, have jurisdiction before proceeding further."

Key Observations from the Bench

  • " Section 225 of the BNSS in specific terms, provides that the said power has to be exercised upon receipt of a complaint of an offence of which the learned Magistrate is authorised to take cognizance ..."
  • "Admittedly, in the case on hand, the appellant is residing in Mumbai outside territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate. In such view of the matter, the finding on issue No.2 by the High Court stands set aside..."
  • "We are inclined to remit the matter to the High Court for deciding the issue No.1, namely, the jurisdictional issue. We request the High Court to pass appropriate orders... within a period of 3 months..."

Stay Granted, High Court Tasked: What's Next?

The appeal stands allowed: "The finding on issue No.2 by the High Court stands set aside... there shall be a stay on the proceedings pending before the Trial Court."

This protects out-of-jurisdiction accused from hasty summons, potentially reducing forum shopping in complaints. High Courts and Magistrates must now prioritize Section 225 inquiries, streamlining BNSS implementation. For future cases, it signals stricter adherence to residence verification, balancing complainant rights with accused protections.