CRM-M-36457- 250 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA M/s Paul Pesticides State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. Sherry K. Singla Mr. Hardeep Singh, AAG Punjab MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Section Criminal Procedure for quashing of (i) 17, 18, 29 and 33 of Insecticide Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of Insecticides Rules 1971, titled as “ summoning order dated Judicial Magistrate, whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial for the aforesaid offences, along with all conseq 2. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer only to the fact that there is violation of Section 223 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. the aforesaid complaint. 3. The principal objection raised by the petitioner is that the learned trial Court has taken cognizance and passed the summoning order without affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused, which, according to the petitioner, is -2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : Paul Pesticides and Another VERSUS HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Hardeep Singh, AAG Punjab -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section Criminal Procedure for quashing of Complaint No. (i) 17, 18, 29 and 33 of Insecticide Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of Insecticides Rules 1971, titled as “State Vs. M/s Paul Pesticides and Others” summoning order dated 27.03.2024 (Annexure P Judicial Magistrate, whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial for the aforesaid offences, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer only to the fact that there is violation of Section 223 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Inter alia, on this ground, the petiti the aforesaid complaint. The principal objection raised by the petitioner is that the learned trial Court has taken cognizance and passed the summoning order without affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused, which, according to the petitioner, is -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36457-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : 02.02.2026 ....Petitioners ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU , Advocate for the petitioners. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Complaint No. 866 of 2024 under Section 3(k) (i) 17, 18, 29 and 33 of Insecticide Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of Insecticides State Vs. M/s Paul Pesticides and Others”, as also the (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial for the uential proceedings arising therefrom. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer only to the fact that there is violation of Section 223 of the Bhartiya Nagarik , on this ground, the petitioner seeks quashing of The principal objection raised by the petitioner is that the learned trial Court has taken cognizance and passed the summoning order without affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused, which, according to the petitioner, is 482 of the Code of of 2024 under Section 3(k) (i) 17, 18, 29 and 33 of Insecticide Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of Insecticides , as also the Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial for the At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer only to the fact that there is violation of Section 223 of the Bhartiya Nagarik oner seeks quashing of The principal objection raised by the petitioner is that the learned trial Court has taken cognizance and passed the summoning order without affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused, which, according to the petitioner, is TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.06 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36457- mandatory under Section The present petition has, thus, been filed questioning the complaint as well as the summoning order on the ground of non contained in Section 223 of the BNSS. Section Suraksha Sanhita reads as under: “223. Section Suraksha Sanhita reads as under: “223. Issue of process cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall issue process against the accused: Provided that n Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard.” 4. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused before t mandatory in nature. Where such an opportunity has not been granted, the very act of taking cognizance and the consequential summoning order stand vitiated. In view of the admitted non deserves to be remanded back to the learned trial Court, with liberty to the petitioner to raise all permissible pleas before the trial Court. The learned Magistrate shall thereafter proceed to decide the matter afresh, strictly in accordance with law and a 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 (3) RCR (Criminal) under:- “6. on the power of the Court to take cognizance by providing that no -2024 (O&M) mandatory under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The present petition has, thus, been filed questioning the complaint as well as the summoning order on the ground of non-compliance of the statutory mandate contained in Section 223 of the BNSS. Section Suraksha Sanhita reads as under: 223. Issue of process.—If, in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall issue process against the accused: Provided that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard.” A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused before t mandatory in nature. Where such an opportunity has not been granted, the very act of taking cognizance and the consequential summoning order stand vitiated. In view of the admitted non-compliance of Section 223 of the BNSS, the matter eserves to be remanded back to the learned trial Court, with liberty to the petitioner to raise all permissible pleas before the trial Court. The learned Magistrate shall thereafter proceed to decide the matter afresh, strictly in accordance with law and after scrupulously complying with the mandate of Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 (3) RCR (Criminal) “6. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 puts an embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance by providing that no -2- 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The present petition has, thus, been filed questioning the complaint as well as the compliance of the statutory mandate contained in Section 223 of the BNSS. Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik If, in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall issue process against the accused: o cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused before taking cognizance is mandatory in nature. Where such an opportunity has not been granted, the very act of taking cognizance and the consequential summoning order stand vitiated. In compliance of Section 223 of the BNSS, the matter eserves to be remanded back to the learned trial Court, with liberty to the petitioner to raise all permissible pleas before the trial Court. The learned Magistrate shall thereafter proceed to decide the matter afresh, strictly in fter scrupulously complying with the mandate of Section The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kushal Kumar Agarwal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 (3) RCR (Criminal) 294, has held as section (1) of Section 223 puts an embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance by providing that no 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The present petition has, thus, been filed questioning the complaint as well as the compliance of the statutory mandate 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik If, in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he o cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear aking cognizance is mandatory in nature. Where such an opportunity has not been granted, the very act of taking cognizance and the consequential summoning order stand vitiated. In compliance of Section 223 of the BNSS, the matter eserves to be remanded back to the learned trial Court, with liberty to the petitioner to raise all permissible pleas before the trial Court. The learned Magistrate shall thereafter proceed to decide the matter afresh, strictly in fter scrupulously complying with the mandate of Section Kushal Kumar Agarwal , has held as section (1) of Section 223 puts an embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance by providing that no TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.06 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36457- cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard. 7. given by the learned Special Judge to the appellant before taking cognizance of the offence on the complaint. Only on that ground, the impugned order dated 20 6. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in “ of Enforcement, Gurugram”, CRM categorically held that affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused before taking cognizance under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is mandatory, even where the complaint was instituted prior to enforcement of the BNSS, provided cognizance is taken after its enforcement.” 7. The said principle squarely applies to the facts of the present case, as the present case stands on better footing. The complaint in the present case was filed after the enforcement of BNSS, 2023 8. In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that there is violation of Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that the matter be remanded back to the trial strictly complying with the provisions of Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all permissible pleas before the trial Court. 10. With these observa 11. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed o February 02, 202 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2024 (O&M) cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard. In this case, admittedly, an opportunity of being heard was not given by the learned Special Judge to the appellant before taking cognizance of the offence on the complaint. Only on that ground, the impugned order dated 20th April 2024, will have to be set aside. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in “ of Enforcement, Gurugram”, CRM-M-29954- categorically held that affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused before taking cognizance under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is mandatory, even where the complaint was instituted prior to enforcement S, provided cognizance is taken after its enforcement.” The said principle squarely applies to the facts of the present case, as the present case stands on better footing. The complaint in the present case was filed after the enforcement of BNSS, 2023. In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that there is violation of Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that the matter be remanded back to the trial Court, which shall proceed afresh after strictly complying with the provisions of Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all permissible pleas before the trial Court. With these observations, the present petition stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed o , 2026 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard. case, admittedly, an opportunity of being heard was not given by the learned Special Judge to the appellant before taking cognizance of the offence on the complaint. Only on that ground, the April 2024, will have to be set aside.” A Coordinate Bench of this Court in “Sikander Singh v. Directorate -2025, decided on 29.07.2025 categorically held that affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused before taking cognizance under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is mandatory, even where the complaint was instituted prior to enforcement S, provided cognizance is taken after its enforcement.” The said principle squarely applies to the facts of the present case, as the present case stands on better footing. The complaint in the present case was In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that there is violation of Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that Court, which shall proceed afresh after strictly complying with the provisions of Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all permissible tions, the present petition stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without case, admittedly, an opportunity of being heard was not given by the learned Special Judge to the appellant before taking cognizance of the offence on the complaint. Only on that ground, the Sikander Singh v. Directorate has categorically held that affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused before taking cognizance under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is mandatory, even where the complaint was instituted prior to enforcement The said principle squarely applies to the facts of the present case, as the present case stands on better footing. The complaint in the present case was In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that there is violation of Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that Court, which shall proceed afresh after strictly complying with the provisions of Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all permissible f. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.06 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document