Introduction 

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, represents a significant transformation in India's criminal procedural law, replacing the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Among its various provisions, the procedures governing complaint cases have undergone notable modifications, particularly in Sections 223-226, which establish a more structured and comprehensive framework for the initiation and processing of criminal complaints before Magistrates. 

Earlier these provisions related to complaint were embodied under Section 200 to Section 203 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). 

Section 223: Examination of Complainant 

• Subsection (1): General Procedure 
  • A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint must examine the complainant and witnesses under oath. 
  • The examination must be recorded in writing and signed by the complainant, witnesses, and the Magistrate. 
  • No cognizance can be taken without giving the accused an opportunity to be heard. 
  • The Magistrate need not examine the complainant and witnesses if the complaint is made by a public servant in official capacity or by a court. 
  • Examination is also not required if the case is transferred to another Magistrate under Section 212. 
  • If a case is transferred after examination, the new Magistrate need not re-examine the complainant and witnesses.
• Section 223(2) - Special Provisions for Public Servants: 
  • A Magistrate cannot take cognizance of a complaint against a public servant for official acts without additional safeguards. 
  • The public servant must be given an opportunity to explain the situation that led to the alleged incident. 
  • A factual report from the public servant's superior officer regarding the incident must be obtained before taking cognizance.
• Comparison Between Section 200 of CrPC and Section 223 of BNSS: 

Section 224 - Procedure for Incompetent Magistrate 

• If a complaint is made to a Magistrate who lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence, specific procedures must be followed. 
• For written complaints, the Magistrate must return the complaint to the complainant for presentation to the proper court with an endorsement indicating the correct forum. 
• For oral complaints, the Magistrate must direct the complainant to approach the proper court that has jurisdiction over the matter. 
• This provision ensures that complaints reach the appropriate judicial authority without causing undue delay or procedural complications for the complainant. 
• This provision is similar to Section 201 of the CrPC. 

Section 225 – Postponement of Issue of Process 

• Section 225(1) - Postponement and Investigation: 
  • A Magistrate may postpone the issuing process against the accused and conduct an inquiry or direct an investigation to determine if sufficient grounds exist for proceeding. 
  • The Magistrate must postpone process if the accused resides outside his jurisdictional area. 
  • The Magistrate can either inquire into the case himself or direct a police officer or other suitable person to investigate. 
  • No investigation can be directed if the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session. 
  • Investigation cannot be directed unless the complainant and witnesses have been examined under oath as per Section 223, except when the complaint is made by a court. 
• Section 225(2) - Inquiry Procedure: 
  • During an inquiry, the Magistrate may take evidence of witnesses on oath at his discretion. 
  • If the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the Magistrate must require the complainant to produce all witnesses and examine them on oath. 
• Section 225(3) - Powers of Non-Police Investigators: 
  • When a non-police officer conducts an investigation under this section, he receives all powers of a police station in-charge except the power to arrest without warrant. 
  • This provision ensures effective investigation while maintaining appropriate limitations on arrest powers for non-police personnel. 
• This provision is similar to Section 202 of CrPC. 

Section 226 – Dismissal of Complaint 

• The Magistrate must consider all available evidence including oath-bound statements of the complainant and witnesses before making a decision. 
• The Magistrate must also consider the results of any inquiry or investigation conducted under Section 225. 
• If the Magistrate finds that there are insufficient grounds for proceeding with the case, he must dismiss the complaint. 
• The Magistrate is required to briefly record his reasons for dismissing the complaint in every such case. 
• This provision ensures that frivolous or baseless complaints are filtered out while maintaining judicial accountability through reasoned orders. 

Important Case Laws 

• Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement (2025): 
  • The Supreme Court clarified the procedure for taking cognizance of complaints under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. 
  • Specifically, the judgment relates to Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA, which deals with the process of taking cognizance of money laundering offences. 
  • The Court held that before a Special Court takes cognizance of a PMLA complaint, it must comply with the procedural safeguard provided under the proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS. 
  • According to this proviso, the accused must be given an opportunity to be heard before cognizance is taken by the Special Court. 
  • This ensures procedural fairness and safeguards the rights of the accused in money laundering cases.
• Ashok AND Fayaz Aahmad (2025): 
  • The Karnataka High Court clarified that the requirement of hearing the accused before taking cognizance, as prescribed in the first proviso to Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), does not apply to complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). 
  • The Court reasoned that the NI Act is a special enactment, and its provisions take precedence in such cases. 
  • Referring to Section 5 of the BNSS and Section 143 of the NI Act, the Court held that the summary procedure under the NI Act governs cases under Section 138. 
  • Therefore, Magistrates are not required to provide an opportunity of hearing to the accused before taking cognizance of complaints filed by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque. 
  • This interpretation aims to maintain the speedy trial mechanism intended under the NI Act for cheque dishonour cases.
• Mohd Afzal Beigh v. Noor Hussain (2025): 
  • The Jammu and Kashmir High Court interpreted Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) as having a non-obstante clause, which overrides general procedures under the CrPC/BNSS. 
  • However, Section 142 only bars cognizance based on police reports, not complaints. It mandates that a written complaint must be filed by the payee within one month of the cause of action. 
  • The Court clarified that Section 142 does not prevent the Magistrate from issuing a pre-cognizance notice under Section 223 of the BNSS. 
  • Justice Wani observed that the issuance of such a pre-cognizance notice is not illegal, as Section 223 BNSS is justice-oriented and complements the NI Act framework. 
  • The Court noted that Section 223 BNSS, unlike the repealed Section 200 CrPC, allows issuance of pre-cognizance notices to assess any legitimate defence of the accused during the preliminary inquiry. 
  • This procedural step helps the Magistrate make a more informed decision even before taking cognizance of the complaint. 
  • However, the Court also clarified that non-compliance with Section 223 BNSS, such as not issuing pre-cognizance notices or not examining the complainant/witness on oath, does not invalidate the proceedings.
• Suby Antony v. R1 (2025): 
  • This judgment was delivered by the Kerela High Court. 
  • The Court made the observation that Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) is corresponding to Section 223 (1) of BNSS.  
  • A new proviso to Section 223 of BNSS is added which provides that no cognizance of the offence shall be taken without giving the accused opportunity of being heard.  
  • Under the CrPC, the accused had no locus standi even at the stage where the Magistrate decides whether or not to issue process to the accused.  
  • Further, it was observed that in spite of the proviso to Section 223(1) making it mandatory to provide opportunity of hearing to the accused before taking cognizance, Section 226 does not reckon the accused's objection at the stage of taking cognizance as a relevant factor for dismissing the complaint.  
  • The Court held that the Magistrate should first examine the complainant and witnesses on oath and thereafter, if the Magistrate proceeds to take cognizance of the offence/s, opportunity of hearing should be afforded to the accused. 

Conclusion 

Sections 223 to 226 of the BNSS, 2023 lay down a modernized and structured framework for handling criminal complaints before Magistrates, enhancing procedural safeguards and clarity. The newly introduced requirement of hearing the accused before cognizance ensures greater fairness and transparency in criminal proceedings.