Safiya Malik

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Vashisth held that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance under Section 210(1)(c) of the BNSS, 2023 and summoning the petitioners for offences under the BNS, 2023. The Court dismissed the petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 challenging the summoning order, observing that the petitioners had approached the Court prematurely without availing their statutory remedy under Section 211 of BNSS, 2023. It further held that the impugned order was passed in accordance with law and petitioners had liberty to exercise their rights as available under the statute.

The petitioners, Inspector Navpreet Singh, HC Rajwinder Singh, SC Harjit Singh, and SCT Jaswinder Singh Man, filed the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 challenging the order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class-cum-Illaqa Magistrate, Bathinda. By the impugned order, the Magistrate took cognizance under Section 210(1)(c) of BNSS, 2023 in CRM No.707 dated 18.02.2025 and summoned them along with SCT Gaganpreet Singh under Sections 103, 238, 340 read with 190 of BNS, 2023, corresponding to Sections 302, 201, 470/471 read with 149 IPC.

Also Read: Supreme Court : Insurer Liable For Fatal Trailer Mishap Pulled By Insured Tractor | Payment Ordered Within Two Months Under Root Cause Doctrine

The case arose from an incident dated 17.10.2024 when Inspector Navpreet Singh deposited the dead body of Bhinder Singh in the Civil Hospital, Bathinda. As per DDR recorded on 18.10.2024, the deceased jumped into thermal lake water while evading police. His postmortem recorded asphyxia due to antemortem drowning as cause of death. However, newspapers and online platforms reported allegations of custodial torture and death by CIA staff Bathinda, with claims of illegal detention, torture, and pressure for settlement.

On 19.10.2024, Satnam Singh, brother of the deceased lodged in Central Jail, Ferozpur, submitted a written complaint alleging that his brother was illegally detained, interrogated, and tortured to death by police officials. The District & Sessions Judge Bathinda initiated inquiry under Section 196 of BNSS, 2023, appointing the JMIC Bathinda as Inquiry Officer. The inquiry report dated 07.02.2025 concluded that Bhinder Singh was in illegal custody of CIA-1 Bathinda and died under suspicious circumstances resembling water boarding, holding the police version improbable.

The Magistrate, after discussing material facts, statements of relatives, police officials, doctors, and forensic expert, concluded there were sufficient grounds to proceed under Section 227 of BNSS, 2023. Accordingly, summons were issued for appearance.

The petitioners contended that without treating the case as a complaint case or remanding it for police investigation, the Magistrate could not have directly summoned them under Chapter XV without recording statements under Chapter XVI. They argued that material collected during judicial inquiry could not be used unless it was confirmed  by witnesses before the Court. The petitioners also raised issues regarding non-compliance of procedural requirements under Sections 227(2) and 231 of BNSS, 2023 and cited several judgments in support.

The State opposed the petition, arguing that the Magistrate lawfully exercised suo motu power under Section 210(1)(c) of BNSS, 2023 based on the inquiry report containing sufficient material. It submitted that the petitioners’ objections ought to have been raised before the summoning Court under Section 211 of BNSS, 2023 rather than invoking jurisdiction of the High Court prematurely.

The Court observed that the legislation has structured the Act into compartments to maintain its objectivity, and under Chapter XV, specific conditions have been laid down for initiating proceedings against an accused by a Judicial Magistrate.

It noted that Chapter XV defines three sources for taking cognizance of an offence by a Magistrate, namely Sections 210(1)(a), (b), and (c) of the BNSS, 2023. In this case, the Court recorded that the Magistrate had taken cognizance under the third mode, which is Section 210(1)(c) of BNSS, 2023.

The Court stated that the power of the Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 210(1)(c) is exclusive, independent, and holistic in nature. It further observed that the petitioners had approached the High Court directly to challenge the summoning order without first availing the remedy of seeking inquiry or fresh inquiry under Section 211 of BNSS, 2023.

The Court recorded that it is a settled proposition of law that the accused has no locus standi at the stage when the Magistrate decides whether to issue process.

It also observed that once Section 210(1)(c) authorises the Magistrate to take cognizance of offences, without any special procedure being prescribed, the next step is to issue process for appearance through summons or warrant at the Magistrate’s discretion, irrespective of the nature of the offence.

Also Read: Gujarat High Court Acquits Murder Accused | Says Circumstantial Evidence Chain Incomplete | Holds Improper Reliance On Section 106 Of Evidence Act | Conviction Set Aside Giving Benefit Of Doubt

Finally, the Court stated that after considering the entire matter, it found no irregularity in the order passed by the Magistrate and held that the impugned order was perfectly in accordance with law.

The Court directed: “Accordingly, it is held that there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 18.02.2025, which appears to have been passed in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS, 2023.”

It further directed: “Therefore, the instant petition is dismissed with the above observations and with the liberty as mentioned here-above.”

The Court clarified: “Petitioners may opt to exercise their right under Section 211 of the BNSS, 2023. If such right is not exercised despite being apprised by the Court, the learned Magistrate may proceed further, treating it as an indication that the summoned accused have no objection to face proceedings before the same Magistrate.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate; Ms. Bhavi Kapur, Advocate; Mr. Prince Goyal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Amandeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab

Case Title: Navpreet Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:077563
Case Number: CRM-M-14743-2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Vashisth