CRM-M-15721- 161 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Rajeev Mehta @ Rajiv Kishor Kirtilal Mehta Mr. Param Bir Singh CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Amit Jhanji, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, Advocate Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Advocate Mr. Tishampati Sen, Advocate Mr. Shashank Sharma Mr. R.S.Rai, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Rubina Virmani, Advocate and Ms. Prachi Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. The present Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of the impugned order dated 11.03.2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar in complaint No. COMI-16-2026 dated 02.03.2026 filed by th Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (corresponding to Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and sections 190 and 200 of Criminal Procedure Code (corresponding to section 210, 223 BNSS). 2. It is apparen instituted the aforesaid complaint alleging commission of offence of defamation. -2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : Rajeev Mehta @ Rajiv Kishor Kirtilal Mehta VERSUS Mr. Param Bir Singh HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Amit Jhanji, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, Advocate Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Advocate Mr. Tishampati Sen, Advocate Mr. Shashank Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Rai, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Rubina Virmani, Advocate and Ms. Prachi Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) he present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of the impugned order dated 11.03.2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar in complaint 2026 dated 02.03.2026 filed by th Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (corresponding to Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and sections 190 and 200 of Criminal Procedure Code (corresponding to section 210, 223 BNSS). It is apparent from the record that the complainant/respondent instituted the aforesaid complaint alleging commission of offence of defamation. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-15721-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 23.03.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Amit Jhanji, Sr. Advocate, assisted by , Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Prachi Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of the impugned order dated 11.03.2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar in complaint 2026 dated 02.03.2026 filed by the complainant/respondent under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (corresponding to Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and sections 190 and 200 of Criminal Procedure Code (corresponding to section 210, 223 BNSS). t from the record that the complainant/respondent instituted the aforesaid complaint alleging commission of offence of defamation. petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of the impugned order dated 11.03.2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar in complaint e complainant/respondent under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (corresponding to Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and sections 190 and 200 of Criminal t from the record that the complainant/respondent instituted the aforesaid complaint alleging commission of offence of defamation. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.24 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15721- The learned Trial Court recorded the preliminary evidence wherein two witnesses namely Parambir Singh and Ajay Yadav were exa respectively and thereafter the complainant closed the preliminary evidence. After considering the material on record, the learned Magistrate, instead of taking immediate cognizance, proceeded to issue notice to the proposed accused in compliance with the proviso to Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, thereby affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused before taking cognizance of the offence. 3. Learned the action of the learned Trial Court in issuing such notice to the proposed accused is not in consonance with law and that the procedure adopted is erroneous. It is argued that the Magistrate ought to have followed the procedure contemp under law before proceeding further and that issuance of such notice causes prejudice to the petitioner. very issuance of notice under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was itself unwarranted in the facts of the present case, and that the complaint ought to have been dismissed outrightly at the threshold. It is submitted that the material placed before the Magistrate, even at the initial stage, did not disclose sufficient invoke the proviso to Section 223 so as to call upon the appear and be heard. instead of dismissing the complai cognizance stage, has unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings by issuing notice to the accused, thereby subjecting him to avoidable litigation. It is further contended that once the Magistrate chose to issue no -2026 (O&M) The learned Trial Court recorded the preliminary evidence wherein two witnesses namely Parambir Singh and Ajay Yadav were exa respectively and thereafter the complainant closed the preliminary evidence. After considering the material on record, the learned Magistrate, instead of taking immediate cognizance, proceeded to issue notice to the proposed accused in compliance with the proviso to Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, thereby affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused before taking cognizance of the offence. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner the action of the learned Trial Court in issuing such notice to the proposed accused is not in consonance with law and that the procedure adopted is erroneous. It is argued that the Magistrate ought to have followed the procedure contemp under law before proceeding further and that issuance of such notice causes prejudice to the petitioner. Learned senior counsel very issuance of notice under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha was itself unwarranted in the facts of the present case, and that the complaint ought to have been dismissed outrightly at the threshold. It is submitted that the material placed before the Magistrate, even at the initial stage, did not disclose sufficient grounds for proceeding, and therefore there was no occasion to invoke the proviso to Section 223 so as to call upon the appear and be heard. Learned senior counsel instead of dismissing the complaint under the applicable provisions at the pre cognizance stage, has unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings by issuing notice to the accused, thereby subjecting him to avoidable litigation. It is further contended that once the Magistrate chose to issue notice and hear the accused under Section -2- The learned Trial Court recorded the preliminary evidence wherein two witnesses namely Parambir Singh and Ajay Yadav were examined as CW1 and CW2 respectively and thereafter the complainant closed the preliminary evidence. After considering the material on record, the learned Magistrate, instead of taking immediate cognizance, proceeded to issue notice to the proposed accused in compliance with the proviso to Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, thereby affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused before counsel for the petitioner/accused has contended that the action of the learned Trial Court in issuing such notice to the proposed accused is not in consonance with law and that the procedure adopted is erroneous. It is argued that the Magistrate ought to have followed the procedure contemplated under law before proceeding further and that issuance of such notice causes counsel has further contended that the very issuance of notice under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha was itself unwarranted in the facts of the present case, and that the complaint ought to have been dismissed outrightly at the threshold. It is submitted that the material placed before the Magistrate, even at the initial stage, did not grounds for proceeding, and therefore there was no occasion to invoke the proviso to Section 223 so as to call upon the petitioner/accused to counsel further argues that the Magistrate, nt under the applicable provisions at the pre cognizance stage, has unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings by issuing notice to the accused, thereby subjecting him to avoidable litigation. It is further contended tice and hear the accused under Section The learned Trial Court recorded the preliminary evidence wherein two witnesses mined as CW1 and CW2 respectively and thereafter the complainant closed the preliminary evidence. After considering the material on record, the learned Magistrate, instead of taking immediate cognizance, proceeded to issue notice to the proposed accused in compliance with the proviso to Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, thereby affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused before has contended that the action of the learned Trial Court in issuing such notice to the proposed accused is not in consonance with law and that the procedure adopted is erroneous. It is lated under law before proceeding further and that issuance of such notice causes has further contended that the very issuance of notice under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha was itself unwarranted in the facts of the present case, and that the complaint ought to have been dismissed outrightly at the threshold. It is submitted that the material placed before the Magistrate, even at the initial stage, did not grounds for proceeding, and therefore there was no occasion to accused to argues that the Magistrate, nt under the applicable provisions at the pre- cognizance stage, has unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings by issuing notice to the accused, thereby subjecting him to avoidable litigation. It is further contended tice and hear the accused under Section TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.24 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15721- 223, the statutory scheme effectively stands exhausted at that stage, and any subsequent recourse to Section 225 for postponement of process would amount to a duplication of scrutiny. According to introducing a pre weeded out at the earliest possible stage, and if despite such material being insufficient, notice is still issued, it results in a situation whe keeps the proceedings alive without justification. It is thus urged that the complaint deserved outright dismissal at the inception itself, and that the course adopted by the Magistrate not only defeats the purpose of expeditious disposal the safeguards under Section 223 and the scheme of Section 225 redundant and overlapping, causing prejudice to the accused. 4. Learned contended that the learned Trial Court lacks ter present complaint. It is submitted that the petitioner resides in Mumbai and all the alleged defamatory communications/statements were made in Mumbai, whereas the complaint has been instituted in Jhajjar, Haryana. It of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court, and therefore, the complaint itself was not maintainable before it. Consequently, the very issuance of notice under Section 223 of the Bharati Sanhita, 2023 is vitiated on this ground alone, and the impugned order as well as the entire proceedings deserve to be set aside. 5. Per contra there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court. It is submitted that the notice has been issued strictly at the pre stage in compliance with the proviso to S -2026 (O&M) 223, the statutory scheme effectively stands exhausted at that stage, and any subsequent recourse to Section 225 for postponement of process would amount to a duplication of scrutiny. According to the petitioner, the introducing a pre-cognizance hearing is to ensure that complaints lacking merit are weeded out at the earliest possible stage, and if despite such material being insufficient, notice is still issued, it results in a situation whe keeps the proceedings alive without justification. It is thus urged that the complaint deserved outright dismissal at the inception itself, and that the course adopted by the Magistrate not only defeats the purpose of expeditious disposal the safeguards under Section 223 and the scheme of Section 225 redundant and overlapping, causing prejudice to the accused. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Trial Court lacks ter present complaint. It is submitted that the petitioner resides in Mumbai and all the alleged defamatory communications/statements were made in Mumbai, whereas the complaint has been instituted in Jhajjar, Haryana. It of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court, and therefore, the complaint itself was not maintainable before it. Consequently, the very issuance of notice under Section 223 of the Bharati Sanhita, 2023 is vitiated on this ground alone, and the impugned order as well as the entire proceedings deserve to be set aside. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondent has argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court. It is submitted that the notice has been issued strictly at the pre stage in compliance with the proviso to Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagrik -3- 223, the statutory scheme effectively stands exhausted at that stage, and any subsequent recourse to Section 225 for postponement of process would amount to petitioner, the legislative intent behind cognizance hearing is to ensure that complaints lacking merit are weeded out at the earliest possible stage, and if despite such material being insufficient, notice is still issued, it results in a situation where the Magistrate keeps the proceedings alive without justification. It is thus urged that the complaint deserved outright dismissal at the inception itself, and that the course adopted by the Magistrate not only defeats the purpose of expeditious disposal but also renders the safeguards under Section 223 and the scheme of Section 225 redundant and counsel for the petitioner/accused has further contended that the learned Trial Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It is submitted that the petitioner resides in Mumbai and all the alleged defamatory communications/statements were made in Mumbai, whereas the complaint has been instituted in Jhajjar, Haryana. It is thus argued that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court, and therefore, the complaint itself was not maintainable before it. Consequently, the very issuance of notice under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is vitiated on this ground alone, and the impugned order as well as counsel for the respondent has argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court. It is submitted that the notice has been issued strictly at the pre-cognizance ection 223 of the Bharatiya Nagrik 223, the statutory scheme effectively stands exhausted at that stage, and any subsequent recourse to Section 225 for postponement of process would amount to legislative intent behind cognizance hearing is to ensure that complaints lacking merit are weeded out at the earliest possible stage, and if despite such material being re the Magistrate keeps the proceedings alive without justification. It is thus urged that the complaint deserved outright dismissal at the inception itself, and that the course adopted by but also renders the safeguards under Section 223 and the scheme of Section 225 redundant and has further ritorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It is submitted that the petitioner resides in Mumbai and all the alleged defamatory communications/statements were made in Mumbai, whereas is thus argued that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court, and therefore, the complaint itself was not maintainable before it. Consequently, ya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is vitiated on this ground alone, and the impugned order as well as counsel for the respondent has argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial cognizance ection 223 of the Bharatiya Nagrik TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.24 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15721- Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which grants an opportunity of hearing to the accused before cognizance is taken. It is further contended that all the objections raised by the petitioner, including those regarding jurisdiction an well be raised by him upon appearance pursuant to the said notice and shall be duly considered by the Trial Court in accordance with law. Learned further submits that Sections 223, 225 and 226 of the BNSS operate harmonious and complementary manner, and the grant of a pre under Section 223 does not render the provisions of Section 225 redundant, as each provision occupies a distinct procedural field. Therefore, the present petition is premature and liable to be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the this Court finds no merit in the present petition. 7. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Magistrate has acted strictly in Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which mandates that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken without affording an opportunity of being heard to the accused. The said provision is a beneficial pro the rights of the accused at a pre 8. It is significant to note that the stage at which the notice has been issued is prior to taking cognizance, and therefore, the proceedings are still pre-cognizance stage. The issuance of notice to the proposed accused does not amount to summoning or initiation of coercive process, but rather ensures compliance with the principles of natural justice by granting an opportunity of hearing before cogn -2026 (O&M) Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which grants an opportunity of hearing to the accused before cognizance is taken. It is further contended that all the objections raised by the petitioner, including those regarding jurisdiction an well be raised by him upon appearance pursuant to the said notice and shall be duly considered by the Trial Court in accordance with law. Learned submits that Sections 223, 225 and 226 of the BNSS operate harmonious and complementary manner, and the grant of a pre under Section 223 does not render the provisions of Section 225 redundant, as each provision occupies a distinct procedural field. Therefore, the present petition is ure and liable to be dismissed. Having heard learned counsel for the this Court finds no merit in the present petition. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Magistrate has acted strictly in accordance with the proviso to Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which mandates that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken without affording an opportunity of being heard to the accused. The said provision is a beneficial provision introduced by the legislature to safeguard the rights of the accused at a pre-cognizance stage. It is significant to note that the stage at which the notice has been issued is prior to taking cognizance, and therefore, the proceedings are still cognizance stage. The issuance of notice to the proposed accused does not amount to summoning or initiation of coercive process, but rather ensures compliance with the principles of natural justice by granting an opportunity of hearing before cognizance is taken. The petitioner, instead of availing such -4- Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which grants an opportunity of hearing to the accused before cognizance is taken. It is further contended that all the objections raised by the petitioner, including those regarding jurisdiction and maintainability, can very well be raised by him upon appearance pursuant to the said notice and shall be duly considered by the Trial Court in accordance with law. Learned senior counsel submits that Sections 223, 225 and 226 of the BNSS operate in a harmonious and complementary manner, and the grant of a pre-cognizance hearing under Section 223 does not render the provisions of Section 225 redundant, as each provision occupies a distinct procedural field. Therefore, the present petition is Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Magistrate accordance with the proviso to Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which mandates that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken without affording an opportunity of being heard to the accused. The vision introduced by the legislature to safeguard cognizance stage. It is significant to note that the stage at which the notice has been issued is prior to taking cognizance, and therefore, the proceedings are still at a cognizance stage. The issuance of notice to the proposed accused does not amount to summoning or initiation of coercive process, but rather ensures compliance with the principles of natural justice by granting an opportunity of izance is taken. The petitioner, instead of availing such Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which grants an opportunity of hearing to the accused before cognizance is taken. It is further contended that all the objections raised by d maintainability, can very well be raised by him upon appearance pursuant to the said notice and shall be counsel in a cognizance hearing under Section 223 does not render the provisions of Section 225 redundant, as each provision occupies a distinct procedural field. Therefore, the present petition is and perused the record, A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Magistrate accordance with the proviso to Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which mandates that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken without affording an opportunity of being heard to the accused. The vision introduced by the legislature to safeguard It is significant to note that the stage at which the notice has been at a cognizance stage. The issuance of notice to the proposed accused does not amount to summoning or initiation of coercive process, but rather ensures compliance with the principles of natural justice by granting an opportunity of izance is taken. The petitioner, instead of availing such TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.24 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15721- opportunity, has chosen to challenge the very issuance of notice, which in fact is for his own benefit. 9. A conjoint reading of Sections 223, 225 and 226 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, distinct and successive stages of a complaint case and are not mutually exclusive. The proviso to Section 223 mandates that no cognizance shall be taken without affording an opportunity of hearing to the the pre-cognizance stage and is intended as a preliminary safeguard against mechanical or unwarranted taking of cognizance. Such hearing is limited in nature and does not amount to a detailed inquiry or evaluation of assists the Magistrate in deciding whether cognizance ought to be taken. In contrast, Section 225 comes into play after cognizance is taken. The scope and object of Section 225 are thus qualitatively different, as it enables a deeper l judicial scrutiny to prevent abuse of process and ensure that summons or warrants are not issued without adequate basis. The contention that Section 225 becomes redundant once the accused has been heard under the proviso to Section 223 is, therefore, misconceived, as both provisions serve different purposes and operate in different procedural domains. The legislature, while introducing the safeguard under Section 223, has consciously retained Section 225, thereby indicating its intent that the Magis before issuing process remains unaffected. A hearing at the pre cannot be equated with the structured inquiry contemplated under Section 225, and the Magistrate’s duty to independ proceeding continues even after such hearing. Consequently, even after affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused under Section 223 and upon taking -2026 (O&M) opportunity, has chosen to challenge the very issuance of notice, which in fact is for his own benefit. A conjoint reading of Sections 223, 225 and 226 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 makes it clear that the provisions operate at distinct and successive stages of a complaint case and are not mutually exclusive. The proviso to Section 223 mandates that no cognizance shall be taken without affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused, which requirement operates at cognizance stage and is intended as a preliminary safeguard against mechanical or unwarranted taking of cognizance. Such hearing is limited in nature and does not amount to a detailed inquiry or evaluation of assists the Magistrate in deciding whether cognizance ought to be taken. In contrast, Section 225 comes into play after cognizance is taken. The scope and object of Section 225 are thus qualitatively different, as it enables a deeper l judicial scrutiny to prevent abuse of process and ensure that summons or warrants are not issued without adequate basis. The contention that Section 225 becomes redundant once the accused has been heard under the proviso to Section 223 is, e, misconceived, as both provisions serve different purposes and operate in different procedural domains. The legislature, while introducing the safeguard under Section 223, has consciously retained Section 225, thereby indicating its intent that the Magistrate’s power to conduct a further inquiry or investigation before issuing process remains unaffected. A hearing at the pre cannot be equated with the structured inquiry contemplated under Section 225, and the Magistrate’s duty to independently assess the sufficiency of grounds for proceeding continues even after such hearing. Consequently, even after affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused under Section 223 and upon taking -5- opportunity, has chosen to challenge the very issuance of notice, which in fact is A conjoint reading of Sections 223, 225 and 226 of the Bharatiya 2023 makes it clear that the provisions operate at distinct and successive stages of a complaint case and are not mutually exclusive. The proviso to Section 223 mandates that no cognizance shall be taken without accused, which requirement operates at cognizance stage and is intended as a preliminary safeguard against mechanical or unwarranted taking of cognizance. Such hearing is limited in nature and does not amount to a detailed inquiry or evaluation of evidence, but merely assists the Magistrate in deciding whether cognizance ought to be taken. In contrast, Section 225 comes into play after cognizance is taken. The scope and object of Section 225 are thus qualitatively different, as it enables a deeper level of judicial scrutiny to prevent abuse of process and ensure that summons or warrants are not issued without adequate basis. The contention that Section 225 becomes redundant once the accused has been heard under the proviso to Section 223 is, e, misconceived, as both provisions serve different purposes and operate in different procedural domains. The legislature, while introducing the safeguard under Section 223, has consciously retained Section 225, thereby indicating its trate’s power to conduct a further inquiry or investigation before issuing process remains unaffected. A hearing at the pre-cognizance stage cannot be equated with the structured inquiry contemplated under Section 225, and ently assess the sufficiency of grounds for proceeding continues even after such hearing. Consequently, even after affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused under Section 223 and upon taking opportunity, has chosen to challenge the very issuance of notice, which in fact is A conjoint reading of Sections 223, 225 and 226 of the Bharatiya 2023 makes it clear that the provisions operate at distinct and successive stages of a complaint case and are not mutually exclusive. The proviso to Section 223 mandates that no cognizance shall be taken without accused, which requirement operates at cognizance stage and is intended as a preliminary safeguard against mechanical or unwarranted taking of cognizance. Such hearing is limited in nature evidence, but merely assists the Magistrate in deciding whether cognizance ought to be taken. In contrast, Section 225 comes into play after cognizance is taken. The scope and evel of judicial scrutiny to prevent abuse of process and ensure that summons or warrants are not issued without adequate basis. The contention that Section 225 becomes redundant once the accused has been heard under the proviso to Section 223 is, e, misconceived, as both provisions serve different purposes and operate in different procedural domains. The legislature, while introducing the safeguard under Section 223, has consciously retained Section 225, thereby indicating its trate’s power to conduct a further inquiry or investigation cognizance stage cannot be equated with the structured inquiry contemplated under Section 225, and ently assess the sufficiency of grounds for proceeding continues even after such hearing. Consequently, even after affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused under Section 223 and upon taking TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.24 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15721- cognizance, the Magistrate retains full discretion to ei or to postpone the same and proceed under Section 225, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, and the exercise of such power cannot be said to be barred or rendered redundant by virtue of the proviso to Section 10. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers. 11. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 12. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. March 23, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2026 (O&M) cognizance, the Magistrate retains full discretion to ei or to postpone the same and proceed under Section 225, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, and the exercise of such power cannot be said to be barred or rendered redundant by virtue of the proviso to Section In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -6- cognizance, the Magistrate retains full discretion to either issue process forthwith or to postpone the same and proceed under Section 225, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, and the exercise of such power cannot be said to be barred or rendered redundant by virtue of the proviso to Section 223. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ther issue process forthwith or to postpone the same and proceed under Section 225, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, and the exercise of such power cannot be said to be In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the warranting All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.24 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document