- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita...
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest – April 2025
Nupur Thapliyal
12 May 2025 1:40 PM IST
Supreme CourtS.256 CrPC/S.279 BNSS | Absence Of Complainant Will Not Always Lead To Acquittal Of Accused : Supreme CourtCase Title: RANJIT SARKAR VS. RAVI GANESH BHARDWAJ AND OTHERSCitation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 369The Supreme Court held that the non-appearance of a complainant will not always result in the acquittal of the accused as per Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure...
Supreme Court
Case Title: RANJIT SARKAR VS. RAVI GANESH BHARDWAJ AND OTHERS
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 369
The Supreme Court held that the non-appearance of a complainant will not always result in the acquittal of the accused as per Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding to Section 279 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita).
The Court interpreted Section 256 Cr.P.C. to mean that acquittal under this section is warranted only when the complainant is absent on the date which was set for the appearance of the accused. If the date was set for a purpose other than the appearance of the accused, the absence of the complainant on such a date will not warrant the acquittal of the accused.
Case Title – Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362
The Supreme Court recently observed that there is no absolute rule preventing a High Court from quashing an FIR by exercising its power under Section 482 of CrPC and its equivalent Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), merely because the investigation is at a nascent stage.
Charges Framed Cannot Be Deleted Invoking S.216 CrPC/S.239 BNSS: Supreme Court
Case Title: DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE VERSUS RAJ KUMAR ARORA & ORS.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 434
The Supreme Court (April 17) held that the power under Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) cannot be invoked to delete charges already framed against an accused, as it can only be used to add or alter the existing charges.
The analogous provision to Section 216 CrPC in the BNSS is Section 239.
“We are in agreement with the view that once charges have been framed by the Trial Court in exercise of the powers under Section 228 CrPC, the accused cannot thereafter be discharged, be it through an exercise of the powers under Sections 227 or 216 CrPC. It is reiterated that the language of Section 216 CrPC provides only for the addition and alteration of charge(s) and not for the deletion or discharge of an accused. If the Legislature had intended to empower the Trial Court with the power to delete a charge at that stage, the same would have been expressly and unambiguously stated. Therefore, at such a stage of the trial, the accused must necessarily either be convicted or acquitted of the charges that were so framed against him. No shortcuts must be allowed.”, the Court observed.
The Court approved the Allahabad High Court's decision Dev Narain v. State of U.P. and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine All 3216, where it was held that a power to delete charges is not conferred on the Court under Section 216 Cr.P.C.
Case Details: Janshruti v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 464
The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking inter-alia balanced protection for all parties in matrimonial cases, mandatory preliminary investigation before filing of S.498A IPC/domestic violence cases and legal protection against false complaints.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter.
Dismissing the PIL, the bench observed, "we see no reason to interfere with the legislative policy/mandate behind Section 498A IPC, now read as Section 84 of the BNS. The plea that such provision is violative of Art.14 is wholly misconceived and misdirected. Art.15 of the Constitution explicitly empowers to enact a special law for protection of women, children...The allegation that the provision is being misused is vague and evasive, as no opinion with respect thereto can be formed while exercising jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. Suffice it to observe that such an allegation can be examined on case-to-case basis."
Case Details: Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement
The Supreme Court remarked that Section 223 (Examination of complainant) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides that the accused must be given an opportunity to be heard before Magistrate takes cognizance of a complaint, is a beneficial provision to prevent unnecessary prosecutions.
Section 223 of the BNSS mandates that the Magistrate must examine the complainant and witnesses on oath. The first proviso states that no cognizance shall be taken without giving the accused an opportunity to be heard.
Section 223 of BNSS replaces Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which did not mandate giving the accused an opportunity to be heard before cognizance was taken.
“This is actually a very salutary provision to avoid unnecessary prosecutions”, Justice Abhay Oka said.
Case Details: Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 456
The Supreme Court (April 22) flagged concern about the acquittal of the accused in cases where the prosecution's vital evidence is not presented to the accused to afford him an opportunity to explain the allegations labelled against him.
To address this legal defect, the Court recommended that High Courts must adopt a proactive approach by checking compliance of Section 313 Cr.P.C. at the outset of the criminal appeals and remanding the matter to the trial court for complying with the provision if there is a lapse.
Allahabad High Court
Case title - Manjeet Singh @ Inder @ Manjeet Singh Chana vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 126
The Allahabad High Court recently quashed the arrest of a man in connection with a forgery and cheating case. It noted that neither the reasons nor grounds for his arrest were communicated in writing at the time of his arrest, violating his constitutional safeguards under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the statutory mandate under Section 50 CrPC.
In its order passed last week, a bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar observed that the right of an arrested person to be informed in writing of the grounds of arrest and furnishing of such written grounds to the arrested person is an imperative requirement of law.
The bench also directed the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, to issue a circular to all the Commissioners of Police/ SSPs/ SPs for necessary compliance of Section 50 and 50A (now Section 47 and 48 BNSS).
Case title - Khushbu Devi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home Deptt) U.P.
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 142
The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to a woman accused of killing her husband in collusion with her mother and alleged lover, with whom she is said to have had an illicit relationship.
A bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan granted bail to the accused (Khushbu Devi) by extending the benefit of Section 480 BNSS, noting that her husband has died and she is in jail, and there is no one in the family to look after her minor children, who are in 'abandoned condition'.
Chattisgarh High Court
Case Title: Abc Prescription Of Prosecutrix In The Closed Envelope v. Anil Kumar
The Chhattisgarh High Court has reiterated that Section 348 of BNSS (erstwhile Section 311 CrPC) which grants court power to summon any person or examine them, or recall and re-examine already examined person, can only be invoked to meet ends of justice, for strong and valid reasons and must be exercised with great caution.
Section 348 of BNSS bestows upon the Court the power to summon, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding, any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance not summoned as a witness, or re-call and re-examine any person already examined. Additionally, the Court also has the power to summon and examine or re-call and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case.
Jammu and Kashmir High Court
Filing List Of Documents In Chargesheet Not Substantial Compliance With S.294 CrPC: J&K High Court
Case-Title: Suresh Kumar Rekhi vs Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 140
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has held that merely filing a list of documents is not substantial compliance with Section 294 CrPC.
The Court held that it was necessary to give notice to the adverse party by providing them the list of the documents which are sought to be admitted or denied by the adverse party as per the section 330 of BNSS, which is equivalent of section 294 of Crpc, to ensure that the party is aware of the documents the said party has been called upon to admit or deny.
Case Title: Mohd Ismail Koka Vs State of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 150
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, while invoking its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) has held that the provision has an overriding effect and is not to be read as subject to Section 359 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 320 of the CrPC).
Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani thus quashed an FIR registered under Sections 452 (trespass) and 376B (marital rape) of the IPC, emphasizing that the extraordinary powers under Section 528 can be exercised to secure the ends of justice, especially in matrimonial disputes where parties have amicably settled.
Case Title: Anil Kumar Yadav Vs Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 158
Clarifying the legal framework regarding the applicability of the old and new criminal procedural laws, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that the relevant factor for determining the applicability of BNSS or CrPC, 1973, is the stage of the case prevailing immediately prior to 01.07.2024.
Observing that any fresh proceedings initiated after BNSS's enactment (01.07.2024) must follow the new Sanhita, even if the alleged crime predates it, Justice Dhar underscored,
“.. the date of commission of the offence or the registration of the FIR is not material for determining the applicability of BNSS. Even if the offence has been committed or the FIR has been registered before 01.07.2024, the stage of the proceedings as it existed immediately prior to that date will have to be completed under the Cr.PC. However, once the case progresses to the next stage after coming into the force of BNSS, then the subsequent stage has to be governed by the provisions contained in BNSS and not by the provisions contained in CrPC, 1973”
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Chimakurthi Naga Venkata Sai Kiran v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
The Andhra Pradesh High Court denied anticipatory bail to a man allegedly involved in a case where employees of a Bank are accused of "orchestrating money transfer fraud" of approximately Rs 28.34 crores using various schemes targeting existing and new customers.
The Court was hearing the petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail in an FIR registered under offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy punishable under BNS Sections 318(4), 316(5), 61(2), respectively.
Case Title: P.V. Midhun Reddy @ Peddireddi Venkata Midhun Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Disposing of a plea by YSR Congress MP P.V. Midhun Reddy for recording his statement in an investigation through audio-video means in his advocate's presence, the Andhra Pradesh High Court reiterated that recording of statement through such means is not mandatory and the discretion rests with the police officer.
Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao in his order referred to High Court's decision in Y.S. Avinash Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, represented by its Director (2023) where it was held that while the proviso to Section 161(3) of CrPC [now, Section 180(3), BNSS] permits discretionary audio-video recording of examination, the person summoned for examination can nonetheless request his examination to be audio-video recorded and consideration of the request shall be in line with the object of Section 161(3) and to ensure that police do not misuse their power to induce statements from the persons so examined.
Justice Rao thereafter said:
"A reading of Section 180(3) of the BNSS as well as the decision reported in Y.S. Avinash Reddy (cited 3rd supra) indicates that the police officer has the discretion to record the statements of witnesses using audiovideo electronic means and the accused or witness cannot compel the Police Officers to record his statement by using audio-video electronic means".
Kerala High Court
Case Title: K. N. Anand Kumar v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 232
Remarking that Indian jails are well equipped to deal with any casualties to prisoners, the Kerala High Court has observed that a person arrested in serious offences cannot be released on bai https://www-livelaw-in.demo.remotlog.com/high-court/kerala-high-court/kerala-high-court-cmrl-sfio-financial-fraud-cognizance-section-223-bnss-289486l merely by claiming to be 'sick' and relying on the first proviso to Section 480(1) of BNSS.
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan stated that the first proviso to Section 480(1) BNSS is applicable only in cases where a prison Medical Officer submits a report that the prisoner cannot be given medical treatment within the prison facility. It also noted that bail may be given in cases where the prisoner is nearing the end of his life.
Case Title: Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited v Union of India and Others
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (16th April) ordered status quo be maintained for two months with respect to the report filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) against the Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited, alleging financial fraud to the tune of several crores.
Justice TR Ravi ordered thus in a petition filed by CMRL challenging the Special Court order taking cognizance of the investigation report. The Court passed the interim order after a legal issue was raised regarding the applicability of Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 which mandates hearing of the accused before the Magistrate takes cognizance.
Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 247
The Kerala High Court has directed the State to give primacy to the opinion of the District Judge while appointing Public Prosecutors and formulate guidelines to that effect. The Court further directed the State to fill any vacancy of Prosecutors remaining unfilled in various courts without much delay.
The Court issued the following guidelines:
1. The government has to give primacy to the opinion of the District Judge in the consultative process contemplated under Section 18 of the BNSS (Section 24 of the Cr.P.C) while making appointments to the post of Public Prosecutor
2. The State Government will frame internal administrative guidelines in strict conformity with Sections 18(3) of the BNSS. The guidelines will contain the stipulations and methodology to ensure that the opinion of the District Judge is given primacy.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Raghuraj Gurjar Alias Raju Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Misc. Criminal Case No. 15256 Of 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 80
While dismissing an application for quashing of rape FIR against a man, the Madhya Pradesh High Court said that merely because a man is acquainted to a woman, it would not give him a 'license' to commit rape.
The applicant sought quashing of FIR lodged for offences under Section 64(1) (Punishment for Rape), 296 (Obscene acts and songs), 351(2) (Criminal Intimidation) of BNSS and certain provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Case Title: Sourav Gurjar And Others Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Misc. Criminal Case No. 14536 Of 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 81
While refusing to quash a FIR following compromise between parties, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that abduction from a public place, assaulting by butt of pistol and making a false video containing self-incriminating admissions under threat would come under the ambit of heinous offence.
The Court was hearing a plea for quashing an FIR for offences punishable under BNS Sections 308(5) (Extortion), 127(2) (Wrongful Confinement), 115(2) (Voluntarily causing hurt), 296 (Obscene Acts and Songs) and 3(5) (Act done in furtherance of common intention).
Punjab High Court
Title: Jaskaran Singh v. State of Haryana and another
Observing that issuance of non bailable warrant "must not be exercised in a mechanical manner and must be adopted sparingly and only upon recording cogent reasons that reflect the necessity of such a stringent course," the Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the bail cancellation order in a cheque bounce case.
The Court was hearing plea filed under 528 of BNSS seeking quashing of the order passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram vide which the bail granted to the petitioner stands cancelled and the petitioner was ordered to be summoned through warrants of arrest in a complaint case under Negotiable Instruments Act.
Karnataka High Court
Case Title: K Ganesh Babu AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 150
The Karnataka High Court has said that before initiating a complaint under Section 379 BNSS for offences affecting administration of justice–like giving false evidence or fabricating documents–a court must apply its judicial mind and come to a conclusion with reasons that it is necessary to hold a preliminary inquiry or initiate a complaint.
The petitioner had approached the high court questioning session court's January 23 order wherein the office was directed to register a separate petition stating that the defendant/petitioner has tendered false evidence. This happened after respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Section 379 read with Section 215 BNSS, stating that the petitioner/defendant "filed a false affidavit, which amounts to perjury".