CRM-M-26962-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 138 CRM-M-26962-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.07.2026 Ravi Dass and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Vishal Munjal, Advocate for the petitioners. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of Criminal Complaint No. COMI/83 dated 15.03.2021 titled Neelam Kumari versus Ravi Dass and others, filed under Sections 326, 325, 424, 324, 323, 452 and 34 IPC as well as the summoning order dated 14.10.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pathankot, whereby the petitioners have been summoned to face trial under Sections 323, 324, 325, 326 and 452 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2. At the very outset, it is noticed by this Court that the impugned summoning order dated 14.10.2024 cannot be sustained for more than one reason. Firstly, the learned Magistrate has admittedly taken cognizance of the complaint on 14.10.2024, i.e. after the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 had come into force with effect from 01.07.2024. However, before taking cognizance and issuing process against the petitioners, no MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.24 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26962-2026 (O&M) -2- opportunity of hearing, as mandatorily contemplated under the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, was afforded to them. The record does not indicate issuance of any notice to the proposed accused or their participation before cognizance was taken. The proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS is couched in mandatory terms and creates a valuable procedural safeguard in favour of a proposed accused. The legal position now stands authoritatively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 (3) RCR (Criminal) 7, wherein it has been held that the proviso to Section 223(1) of BNSS confers a substantive right of hearing before cognizance and that non-compliance thereof vitiates the proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that mere presentation of a complaint prior to the enforcement of the BNSS does not amount to commencement of an "inquiry"; rather, inquiry commences only upon judicial application of mind by the Court. 3. A similar view has been taken by this Court in Sikander Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement, Gurugram, 2025 NCPHHC 94397, wherein it has been categorically held that where cognizance is taken after the enforcement of the BNSS, compliance with the proviso to Section 223(1) is mandatory notwithstanding that the complaint may have been presented before 01.07.2024. It was further held that presentation or filing of the complaint by itself does not constitute commencement of inquiry and that the accused is entitled to the benefit of the statutory safeguard before cognizance is taken. 4. In the present case, admittedly, cognizance was taken and the petitioners were summoned on 14.10.2024 without affording them the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.24 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26962-2026 (O&M) -3- statutory opportunity of hearing envisaged under Section 223(1) BNSS. The impugned order, therefore, stands vitiated on this ground alone. 5. Secondly, even otherwise, the impugned summoning order is wholly non-speaking and reflects no meaningful application of judicial mind to the material placed before the learned Magistrate. Although the order reproduces the allegations made in the complaint and notices the evidence led during preliminary inquiry, it does not disclose any independent reasoning as to how the ingredients of the offences alleged are prima facie made out against each of the petitioners. Significantly, the complaint itself specifically referred to the earlier FIR arising out of the same occurrence and the proceedings conducted therein, yet the impugned order is completely silent regarding the effect of the police investigation and the cancellation report, which had already been submitted before the competent Court. There is no discussion whatsoever as to why the said material was being ignored while issuing process. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 has emphatically held that summoning an accused is a serious matter and cannot be undertaken in a mechanical manner. The Magistrate is required to carefully scrutinize the allegations and the preliminary evidence and the order issuing process must itself reflect application of judicial mind. Mere recording of statements of the complainant and witnesses is not sufficient; the Magistrate is under an obligation to examine whether a prima facie case is actually made out before directing issuance of process. 7. In view of the above position of law, the impugned summoning MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.24 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26962-2026 (O&M) -4- order dated 14.10.2024 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of. The matter is remanded to the learned trial Court to consider the complaint, the preliminary evidence and the entire material available on record afresh after first complying with the mandatory requirement contained in the proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and thereafter passing a fresh, reasoned order in accordance with law regarding the question whether a prima facie case is made out for issuance of process against them. 23.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.24 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document