Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest – May 2025
SUPREME COURT PMLA Accused Entitled To Hearing Before Cognizance Is Taken Of ED Complaint Filed After BNSS Came Into Effect: Supreme Court Case Title: Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 642 The Supreme Court held that before taking cognizance of a money laundering complaint under section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering...
SUPREME COURT
Case Title: Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 642
The Supreme Court held that before taking cognizance of a money laundering complaint under section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the special court has to give opportunity to the accused to be heard as per the proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan quashed the cognizance order passed by the Special Court dated November 20, 2024, after noting that the BNSS, which came effect from July 1, 2024, mandated pre-cognizance hearing of the accused as per Section 223(1). Such a provision was not present in the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure.
The bench noted that in Tarsem Lal vs ED, it was held that a complaint filed by Enforcement Directorate under Section 44(1)(b) of PMLA will be governed by Sections 200 to 204 of the CrPC. As a corollary, provisions of chapter 16 (sections 223 to 226 of BNSS) will also apply to the complaint under Section 44 of PMLA.
Domestic Violence Act Complaints Can Be Quashed By HCs Under S.482 CrPC/528 BNSS :Supreme Court
Case: Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi vs Vidhi Rawal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 599
The Supreme Court on Monday (May 19) held that High Courts can quash complaints filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in exercise of their inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now S.528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2003).
The Court said that in a given case, where a learned Magistrate is dealing with an application under Section 12(1), the High Court can exercise the power under the second part of Section 482 to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. The High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash proceedings of an application under Section 12(1) or orders passed in accordance with Sections 18 to 23 of the DV Act, 2005.
At the same time, the bench cautioned that considering the object of the DV Act, the High Court should exercise caution and circumspection when dealing with an application under Section 12(1).
DELHI HIGH COURT
Title: Upendra Nath Dalai v. UOI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 548
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday rapped a litigant for filing a public interest litigation alleging that the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 which replaced the erstwhile Indian Penal Code of 1860, is a “criminal act” of the Government of India.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela took exception to the petition filed by one Upendra Nath Dalai, based out of Odisha, who was appearing in person.
Case title: Khushi Sharma v. Union Of India And Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 567
The Delhi High Court today expressed “serious consternation” and “regret” at the conduct of both the Delhi Police and the Uttar Pradesh Police in failing to register an FIR regarding the mysterious death of a 20-year-old Delhi resident in Greater Noida.
At the outset, the Court referred to Section 173 of the BNSS which replaced Section 154 CrPC on registration of FIR and observed that the Legislature has added the words “… irrespective of the - area where the offence is committed…”
It held that the intent of the Legislature is therefore that information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally must be reduced into writing by an officer in-charge of a police station, regardless of where the offence may be stated to have been committed.
Case title : FOUNDATION FOR INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM V/s AMITA SINGH and connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 574
The Delhi High Court has rejected the pleas moved by Foundation of Independent Journalism, which runs the media platform 'The Wire', and its editor Ajoy Ashirwad Mahaprastha challenging an order summoning them on a criminal defamation case filed by former JNU professor Amita Singh.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed the petitions challenging the trial court order passed on January 13 summoning them in the defamation case filed by Singh.
The court rejected the petitioner's contention that since there was no pending matter against it on July 1, 2024 thus, it is BNSS which would be applicable, giving a right to the Petitioner to be heard before the Summoning Order was passed.
JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Case Title: Mohd Afzal Beigh Vs Noor Hussain
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 177
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has clarified that the provisions of Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act) do not bar Magistrates from adhering to the pre-cognizance notice requirements under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
A bench of Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani emphasized that while the N.I. Act mandates specific procedures for complaints under Section 138 (cheque dishonour), the issuance of pre-cognizance notices to the accused under BNSS remains permissible and "justice-oriented."
Interpreting the mandate of Section 142 N.I. Act the Court noted that Section 142 begins with a "Non-obstante" clause, overriding the general CrPC/BNSS procedures. However, it only bars cognizance based on police reports (not complaints) and mandates a written complaint by the payee within one month of the cause of action. The Court clarified that this does not exclude the Magistrate's discretion to issue pre-cognizance notices under Section 223 BNSS, which aids in assessing the accused's defence early.
Case Title: Ravinder Kumar & Others Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 200
Shedding light on the Legislative intent behind the provision of allowing the deferment of Cross-examination of a prosecution witness under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that an application for deferment of cross-examination of a witness or a set of witnesses must be filed as early as possible but in any case, before the commencement of cross-examination, for once the defence strategy is exposed, the object of such deferral pales into insignificance.
Case Title: Aamina & Ors Vs Aamir Ahmad Mir & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 215
Interpreting the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that an order merely issuing notice in a proceeding is interlocutory in nature and, therefore, not amenable to revisional jurisdiction.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, while dismissing a petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, reaffirmed that Section 438(2) of the BNSS creates a statutory bar against exercising revisional powers in relation to such interlocutory orders.
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Ashok AND Fayaz Aahmad
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 172
The Karnataka HIgh Court has said that the procedure of hearing the accused at the stage of taking cognizance of the complaint as prescribed in the first proviso to Section 223 of BNSS shall not apply to the complaints for offence made under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
For context, Section 223 of BNSS makes a departure from the earlier provision contained in Section 200 Cr.P.C. Under the proviso to Sub-Section (1) of 223, the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence, without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard.
A single judge, Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar held thus while dismissing a petition filed by one Ashok who had approached the court questioning the cognizance order taken by the Magistrate court on the complaint filed by one Fayaz Aahmad without issuing him a notice for hearing.
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Case Title: Minaxi Chandulal Shah & Ors. vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 76
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the validity of a 2023 amendment to Section 13 of Registration of Births and Death Act that transferred the authority to inquire into the delayed registration of birth and deaths beyond a year from Judicial Magistrate to Executive Magistrate or District Magistrate(DM).
The court was hearing a plea challenging the amendment to Section 13 on the ground that it is against Section 3(2)(a) BNSS wherein any inquiry regarding evaluation of evidence is to be adjudicated by Judicial Magistrate and the Executive Magistrate under Section 3(2)(b) BNSS can only conduct an administrative/executive inquiry.
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Thursday (May 15) ordered that it shall monitor Police's investigation against BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah in an FIR lodged for his comments on Colonel Sofiya Qureshi where he called her "sister of terrorists", to ensure it happens fairly.
This comes after the Court was dissatisfied with the contents of the FIR lodged by the State Police. The court further said that it is compelled to monitor the probe to ensure that the police investigates the case fairly without getting influenced by any extraneous pressures.
On Wednesday the high court had directed the state's Director General of Police to lodge an FIR against the state BJP Minister after taking a serious objection to the minister's remarks describing it as "disparaging", "dangerous", and "language of the gutters"–not merely targeting the officer in question, but denigrating the armed forces as a whole. It further observed that, prima facie, offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, are made out against the Minister.
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declared the arrest of an accused in a drugs case illegal, finding that no reasons for the search of his premises were recorded and that the investigating agency also failed to provide the grounds of arrest in compliance with BNSS.
It was alleged that on basis of secret information, a huge amount of drug money was recovered in the form of foreign currency from accused person's premises.
Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu said, "there is force in the argument raised by learned Senior counsel that it was imperative for the Investigating Agency to supply the “grounds of arrest” to the petitioner, but they miserably failed to do so and thus, negated the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of Cr.P.C. (Section 47 of BNSS) as well as breached the safeguards provided under Article 22 of the Constitution. As such, the initial arrest of the petitioner was wholly illegal; hence unsustainable in law."
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Case title - Vipin Tiwari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 175
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 175
The Allahabad High Court has recently observed that neither a person can be denied bail nor his bail plea be opposed mainly on the ground that extracts of the case diary had been annexed with his bail plea.
During the hearing, the informant raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the bail application, contending that the accused had access to the case diary and had even annexed copies of certain extracts with the bail plea, which indicated that he could influence the course of the investigation.
Rejecting this submission, the bench noted that Section 230 BNSS (Supply to accused of copy of police report and other documents) itself provides a mandate to the Magistrate that upon appearance of the accused, he shall furnish to the accused copies of the police report, copies of the statements recorded under Section 180(3), the confessions and statements recorded under Section 183 and any other document forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report to the accused.
The Court observed that although Section 230 of the BNSS appears to be in conflict with Section 192 regarding the supply of prosecution papers to the accused, the provision more beneficial to the accused (namely, Section 230) would be given precedence, especially as it aligns with the principles of natural justice.
Case title - Mohammed Zubair vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 186
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 186
Refusing to quash an FIR lodged against Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair over his tweets ('X' posts) on the 'controversial' speeches of Yati Narsinghanand, the Allahabad High Court on Thursday observed that while Zubair's posts do not appear to be violating freedom of speech and expression, it was only through an investigation that it can be determined whether any offence, as alleged, is made out against him.
It, however, refrained from interfering in the case and left it to the 'sagacity' of the Investigating Agency to come to a proper conclusion, including whether the offence under Section 152 BNS [acts endangering the sovereignty or unity of India] was attracted against him.
The Bench also added that there was a possibility that the allegations made in the FIR could be found false by the Investigating Agency, and therefore called for both a 'subjective' and an 'objective' probe into the matter.
In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday referred to a nine-judge bench two key questions concerning the High Court's power to quash an FIR and the ensuing investigation using its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC (corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS).
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal referred the matter to a larger bench, given the HC's 7-Judge Bench ruling in the case of Ramlal Yadav and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others (1989), wherein it was held that for quashing the FIR, a plea under Section 482 CrPC wouldn't be maintainable and an appropriate remedy would be to file a plea under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
It noted that in the exercise of its power u/s 482 CrPC, the HC can interfere with the investigation, in the case seeking quashing of FIR, where not only cases where FIR does not disclose cognizable offence but also on fulfilment of other conditions as mentioned in Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure.
The Court also added that since it is the mandate of Section 155 (2) CrPC [Section 174(2) of BNSS] that the police cannot investigate a non-cognizable offence, therefore, if the police continues to investigate an FIR, which does not disclose a cognizable offence, the same would be against the mandate of CrPC/BNSS and in such cases, the HC court can interfere or stop the investigation in exercise of its power u/s 528 of BNSS (or Section 482 CrPC).
Case title - Raman Sahni vs. State Of U.P. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 201
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 201
The Allahabad High Court has observed that with the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the Criminal Procedure Code (UP Amendment) Act, 2018 - which imposed restrictions on the grant of anticipatory bail in the State (effective from June 6, 2019), in cases under specific laws including the UP Gangsters Act - stands 'impliedly repealed'.
A bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh observed that when a State amends a law on a subject in the Concurrent List, and the Parliament later makes a change to that same law, the State law must give way to the Parliament's law, even if the said law adds to, changes, or repeals the law made by the legislature of the State.
The Court added that when a legislature repeals any act, it has the power to save any right, privilege or remedy provided under the repealed statute; however, in the instant case, while BNSS has repealed CrPC, it did not save the State amendments made in the erstwhile CrPC and hence, UP State Amendment to CrPC would stand 'impliedly' repealed.
KERALA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Shamil Muhammed v. State of Kerala and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 293
The Kerala High Court recently imposed an exemplary cost of ₹20,000 against the petitioner in a Criminal Miscellaneous Case for filing a second Crl.M.C. through another counsel while the first one, seeking the same relief, was still pending before the Court.
Finding that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 528 of BNSS are akin to the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court found that the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its various decisions regarding equitable and prerogative jurisdiction would apply to the proceedings under S. 482 CrPC/S. 528 BNSS also.