3. SCRUTINY OF THE COMPLAINT
(1) Pre-cognizance stage.
During the pre-cognizance stage under Section 3 of the complaint scrutiny framework, a Magistrate receiving an oral or written complaint must decide whether to exercise judicial mind and take cognizance of the alleged offense.
If the Magistrate refers the matter to the police for investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS (formerly Section 156(3) CrPC), rather than proceeding to post-cognizance steps under Sections 223, 225, or 227 BNSS, legal cognizance is not deemed to have been taken.
If the complaint is submitted to a Magistrate lacking proper territorial or subject-matter jurisdiction, the Magistrate must return the written complaint with an endorsement for presentation to the appropriate court or direct the complainant to the competent venue if the complaint was made verbally.
(2) Examination of the complainant.
Under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) [formerly Section 200 CrPC], once a Magistrate decides to take cognizance of a private complaint, the initial step requires examining the complainant and present witnesses on oath to filter out frivolous or malicious prosecutions.
The statements must be transcribed and signed by the complainant, witnesses, and Magistrate.
Significantly, the BNSS introduces protections by mandating that an accused be granted an opportunity to be heard before cognizance is taken.
For public servants accused of acts during official duties, cognizance further requires giving the officer a chance to explain the situation and obtaining an investigative report from their superior officer under Section 223(2) BNSS.
However, Section 223 provides exceptions where written examination is dispensed with, including written complaints submitted by a court or public servant acting officially, or cases transferred under Section 212 BNSS without requiring duplicate proceedings by the receiving Magistrate.
(3) Inquiry or investigation for further scrutiny of the complaint.
Under Section 225 BNSS (formerly Section 202 CrPC), when a Magistrate receives a criminal complaint, they may postpone issuing court process (summons or warrants) to conduct a preliminary check aimed at weeding out frivolous cases.
The object is not to determine whether the evidence guarantees conviction, but whether there is sufficient ground to proceed.
While the Magistrate may generally choose between holding an inquiry or ordering a police investigation, the Vijay Dhanuka principle makes this mandatory when the accused resides outside the Magistrate’s territorial jurisdiction, protecting individuals from predatory, out-of-district litigation.
However, a police investigation cannot be ordered if the offence is triable exclusively by a Sessions Court or if the complainant and present witnesses have not been examined on oath under Section 223 BNSS.
Where investigation is assigned to a non-police individual, that person holds police-station-in-charge powers except the right to make warrantless arrests.
If the case falls strictly under Sessions Court jurisdiction, Section 225(2) BNSS mandates a broad-based inquiry requiring the complainant to produce all witnesses for examination on oath.
Throughout this pre-process stage, the accused has no legal standing or right of participation, ensuring the initial evaluation proceeds without prematurely prejudicing either party.
(4) Dismissal of complaint.
Under Section 226 BNSS (formerly Section 203 CrPC), a Magistrate who determines that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding must dismiss the complaint and briefly record the reasons to safeguard against arbitrary decision-making.
The legal threshold for dismissal is not whether the evidence guarantees conviction, but whether it fails to establish even a prima facie case; unless the statements are self-contradictory or inherently untrustworthy, process against the accused cannot be refused.
If a complaint is dismissed, filing a second complaint on identical facts is prohibited except in rare circumstances, such as when the initial dismissal was manifestly unjust, passed on an incomplete record, or newly discovered facts emerge that could not have been produced earlier with reasonable diligence.
Furthermore, as established in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel, if the complainant files a revision petition before a Sessions Judge or High Court against the dismissal, Section 442(2) BNSS (formerly Section 401(2) CrPC) guarantees the named accused a statutory right to be heard during the revisional proceedings.
4. ISSUE OF PROCESS
Under Section 227 BNSS (formerly Section 204 CrPC), once a Magistrate determines that there are sufficient grounds to proceed with a complaint, they initiate court process by issuing a summons in a summons case, or choosing between a summons or a warrant in a warrant case, with modern provisions explicitly allowing for service via electronic means.
Before any process can be officially issued, three crucial prerequisites must be met: the complainant must file a list of prosecution witnesses to allow the accused to prepare a defense, attach a copy of the written complaint to inform the accused of the specific allegations, and pay any applicable process fees to prevent dismissal of the case.
Because requiring an individual to face criminal proceedings seriously impacts their personal dignity and reputation, courts must apply judicial mind to ensure process is not weaponized for harassment or issued where legal ambiguities exist without prior clarification.
Once a Magistrate passes an order issuing process, they lack the statutory authority to recall or undo that order (Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal); consequently, the accused’s sole remedy to challenge an improper summons is to petition the High Court to quash it under Section 528 BNSS.
Lastly, under Section 228 BNSS, when a summons is issued in the first instance, the Magistrate retains the discretion to grant the accused an exemption from personal appearance and allow representation through an advocate, though the court maintains the right to mandate the accused’s physical presence at any subsequent stage of the trial.
5. SPECIAL SUMMONS IN CASES OF PETTY OFFENCES
Section 229 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) introduces an abridged legal mechanism for resolving petty offenses, primarily aimed at easing court congestion and saving accused individuals from unnecessary court appearances when they intend to plead guilty.
Under this provision, a petty offense is generally defined as one punishable solely by a fine up to ₹5,000, though State Governments may extend this authority to offenses punishable by up to three months of imprisonment or compoundable offenses under Section 359 BNSS if a fine alone satisfies the ends of justice.
Unless excluded—such as cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, or where the Magistrate records written reasons against summary disposal—the Magistrate issues a special summons specifying a fine capped at ₹5,000.
This special summons offers the accused the flexibility to either appear in court in person, send a written guilty plea along with the fine via post or messenger, or authorize an advocate in writing to plead guilty and pay the fine on their behalf without personal attendance.
6. SUPPLY TO THE ACCUSED PERSON OF THE COPIES OF STATEMENTS, DOCUMENTS AND THE POLICE REPORT
Under Sections 230 and 231 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the law mandates that the accused—and the victim, if represented by counsel—must be provided with free copies of all core case materials to ensure a fair trial and allow adequate preparation for defense.
In cases initiated on a police report, Section 230 requires the Magistrate to supply these documents within 14 days of the accused’s appearance, covering the police report, the FIR, witness statements, confessions, and supporting exhibits.
While police can request to redact certain witness statement portions under Section 193(7) BNSS, the Magistrate exercises ultimate discretion on whether to disclose those excerpts.
For cases involving voluminous records, the BNSS modernizes procedure by explicitly permitting electronic document delivery or court file inspection as valid substitutes for physical printing.
Similarly, under Section 231 BNSS, when a private complaint case triable exclusively by a Sessions Court proceeds, the Magistrate must immediately furnish the accused with free copies of all witness statements examined under Sections 223/225 BNSS, recorded confessions, and prosecution evidence, using electronic delivery or court inspection where records are excessively large.
7. COMMITMENT OF THE CASE TO THE SESSIONS COURT
According to Section 21 and Section 213 of the BNSS, certain serious offences are triable exclusively by the Sessions Court, but that court cannot take direct cognizance of them without a formal commitment procedure executed by a Magistrate.
Under Section 232 BNSS (formerly Section 209 CrPC), once the Magistrate determines that an offence belongs exclusively to the Sessions Court, they must supply all required documents and statements to the accused, remand or bail the accused accordingly, transfer all case records and physical evidence, and formally inform the Public Prosecutor.
In performing this duty, the Magistrate acts as a administrative gateway rather than a trial judge; they evaluate the material merely to confirm whether the alleged facts constitute a Sessions-triable offence and whether sufficient evidence exists for commitment—not for conviction.
To streamline trial timelines and prevent undue delays, the BNSS mandates that this committal process be finalized within 90 days from taking cognizance, with a maximum permissible extension of up to 180 days if supported by written reasons.
Additionally, the Magistrate must forward any pending applications submitted by either the accused or the victim directly to the Sessions Court at the time of committal.
8. CONSOLIDATION OF CASES RELATING TO THE SAME OFFENCE
Under Section 233 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the law provides a procedure for consolidating private complaint cases and police investigations that involve the same offense to prevent conflicting decisions and duplicate trials.
When a Magistrate conducting an inquiry or trial in a private complaint case learns that a parallel police investigation is underway for the same offense, the Magistrate must immediately stay the private court proceedings and call for an investigation report from the police officer.
If the resulting police report under Section 193 BNSS leads to the Magistrate taking cognizance against an accused named in the private complaint, both matters are merged and tried together under the standard procedure for cases instituted on a police report.
Conversely, if the police report does not concern the accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate chooses not to take cognizance on the police report, the stay is lifted, and the Magistrate resumes the original private complaint proceedings in accordance with the BNSS.