Complaint to Magistrate Under BNSS 2023: A Complete Guide

Introduction

Sections 223 – 226 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 govern cases where a Magistrate takes cognizance on complaint. These provisions serve a dual purpose: they distinguish genuine complaints from unfounded ones, and they prevent courts from issuing process on false or vexatious complaints.

How a Magistrate Examines a Complainant (Section 223)

Section 223(1) requires a Magistrate who takes cognizance of an offence on complaint to examine the complainant and any witnesses present, under oath. The Magistrate must reduce the substance of this examination to writing, and the complainant, witnesses, and Magistrate must all sign it.

This examination is mandatory — it is not a mere formality. Courts have held that dismissing a complaint without conducting this examination is illegal.

New Right for the Accused: Opportunity of Hearing

The First Proviso to Section 223(1) of BNSS introduces a significant change: no Magistrate can take cognizance on a complaint without first giving the accused an opportunity of being heard. The CrPC contained no such right for the accused — this is a new protection introduced by BNSS 2023.

Purpose of Examination: The Supreme Court’s view

In Shankar Finance and Investment v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) 8 SCC 536, the Supreme Court held that the examination under Section 223(1) serves to satisfy the Magistrate about the existence of a prima facie case and to protect the accused from harassment through false and vexatious complaints.

Exceptions: When the Magistrate Need Not Examine the Complainant

The Second Proviso to Section 223(1) carves out two exceptions where a Magistrate, on receiving a written complaint, may skip examination of the complainant and witnesses:

1. A public servant acting in discharge of official duty, or a court, has filed the complaint.
2. The Magistrate transfers the case to another Magistrate under Section 212 — and that successor Magistrate need not re-examine them.

What Qualifies as a Complaint?

In Mohd. Yusuf v. Smt. Afaq Jahan, AIR 2006 SC 705, the Supreme Court clarified that BNSS prescribes no particular format for a complaint. A petition addressed to a Magistrate that alleges commission of an offence can serve as a valid complaint.

Cognizance Against a Public Servant: Special Safeguards (Section 223(2))

Section 223(2) places additional requirements before a Magistrate can take cognizance of a complaint against a public servant for acts allegedly committed during official duties. The Magistrate must:

• Give the public servant an opportunity to state their version of events; and
• Receive a report containing the facts and circumstances from the public servant’s superior officer.

This provision is entirely new — the CrPC contained no equivalent — and it shields public servants from frivolous or malicious prosecutions.

What Happens When a Magistrate Lacks Jurisdiction? (Section 224)

Section 224 directs a Magistrate who lacks competence to take cognizance of a case to act as follows:

• If the complaint is in writing, return it with an endorsement directing the complainant to the proper court.
• If the complaint is oral, direct the complainant to the appropriate court.

Postponement of Issuing Process (Section 225)

A Magistrate who takes cognizance — or receives a transferred case under Section 212 — may postpone issuing process to the accused. To determine whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed, the Magistrate may either:

• Inquire into the case personally; or
• Direct a police officer or any other person to investigate (such a person holds all the powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station, except the power of arrest without warrant).

Where the accused resides beyond the court’s jurisdiction, the Magistrate must mandatorily postpone issuing process and proceed under Section 225.

When the Magistrate Cannot Direct an Investigation

The Magistrate cannot direct investigation in the following situations:

1. The offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session.
2. The Magistrate has not yet examined the complainant and witnesses under Section 223 (except where a court filed the complaint).

Importantly, where a public servant or any other person (not a court) files the complaint, examination under Section 223 becomes mandatory before the Magistrate can direct investigation — even though Section 223 itself makes that examination optional in such cases.

Purpose of Section 225: What the Supreme Courts Says

In Manhari Bhai v. Shailesh Bhai (2012) 10 SCC 517, the Supreme Court identified two objects of Section 225:

1. It enables the Magistrate to scrutinize the complaint’s allegations and prevent harassment of the accused.
2. It helps the Magistrate assess whether sufficient material supports the complaint.

In Abhijit Pawar v. Hemlata Madhukar Nimbalkar (2017) 3 SCC 528, the Supreme Court emphasized that the inquiry or investigation under this section is not an empty formality. Witnesses are examined during this inquiry, whereas Section 223 only requires examination of the complainant (with the option to examine witnesses).

Scope of Inquiry Under Section 225

The Supreme Court in Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi AIR 1976 SC 1947 held that the scope of inquiry under Section 225 is extremely limited — it only ascertains the truth or falsehood of the complaint’s allegations. The accused has no locus standi during these proceedings and is not entitled to be heard at this stage.

Key principles from the Supreme Court:

• Police cannot exercise the power of arrest during an investigation directed under Section 225 (Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2015 SC 1742).
• Such a directed investigation is not “further investigation” under Section 193(9) of BNSS — it is simply an inquiry to help the Magistrate decide whether to proceed (Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel (2017) 4 SCC 177).

Cases Triable Exclusively by the Court of Session

Where the Magistrate finds that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the proviso to Section 225 requires the Magistrate to call upon the complainant to produce all witnesses and examine them on oath. This proviso protects the accused by giving them a full picture of the case against them before trial.

In Rosy and Another v. State of Kerala AIR 2000 SC 637, the Supreme Court held that in such cases, directing a police investigation is not permissible — the Magistrate must conduct the inquiry personally. However, any irregularity in following this proviso does not automatically vitiate the proceedings. A party who fails to raise the objection at the earliest opportunity cannot raise it later.

How a Magistrate Dismisses a Complaint (Section 226)

After considering the complainant’s statement, the witnesses’ statements, and the result of any inquiry or investigation under Section 225, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint if they find no sufficient ground to proceed. The Magistrate must briefly record the reasons for dismissal.

“Sufficient ground” means a prima facie case against the accused — not proof sufficient for conviction (Nirmanjit Singh v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1972 SC 2639). A party aggrieved by a dismissal order may challenge it in revision.

In S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and Another AIR 2005 SC 3512, the Supreme Court observed that the phrase “after considering” in Section 226 requires the Magistrate to actively apply their mind to the complaint at the initial stage itself to determine whether a case against the accused stands.

Can a Second Complaint Be Filed After Dismissal?

A dismissal order under Section 226 is neither an acquittal nor a discharge, so the principle under Section 337 of BNSS does not apply. In Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru (2010) 2 SCC 631, the Supreme Court held that courts may entertain a second complaint only in exceptional circumstances:

1. The earlier dismissal rested on an incomplete record.
2. The earlier order resulted from a misunderstanding of the complaint’s nature or was manifestly absurd or unjust.
3. The second complaint presents new facts that the complainant could not, with reasonable diligence, have brought on record in the earlier proceedings.

Can a Complainant Amend a Complaint?

BNSS contains no express provision allowing a complainant to amend a complaint. However, in S.R. Sukumar v. S. Sunaad Raghuram (2015) 9 SCC 609, the Supreme Court held that where the proposed amendment addresses a simple, curable infirmity and causes no prejudice to the other side, the court may permit the amendment — even without an explicit enabling provision.

Conclusion: Balancing Justice and Protection Against Abuse

Sections 223–226 of BNSS 2023 collectively build a robust procedural framework that balances two competing imperatives — ensuring that genuine victims receive timely access to justice, while shielding innocent persons from frivolous, false, or politically motivated prosecutions.

Several features of this framework deserve special attention. First, the mandatory examination of the complainant under Section 223 acts as the first filter — it forces the Magistrate to engage with the complaint substantively rather than mechanically. Second, the new right of the accused to be heard before cognizance, introduced by the First Proviso to Section 223(1), marks a meaningful departure from the CrPC and reflects a more rights-conscious approach to criminal procedure. Third, the added safeguard under Section 223(2) for public servants recognizes the unique vulnerability of officials to motivated litigation and brings institutional accountability into the pre-cognizance stage.

Section 225’s inquiry mechanism further strengthens this framework by giving the Magistrate a structured tool to test the complaint’s merits before exposing the accused to the coercive machinery of criminal law. The Supreme Court’s consistent emphasis — from Nagawwa to Abhijit Pawar — that this inquiry is neither a formality nor a full trial underscores its careful, calibrated design.

Finally, the rules governing dismissal, second complaints, and amendments under Sections 226 and related provisions ensure that procedural finality does not become an instrument of injustice. Courts retain the flexibility to reopen cases in exceptional circumstances and to allow curative amendments, while maintaining the discipline needed to prevent endless relitigation.

Taken together, these provisions reflect the legislature’s intent to make the complaint process both credible and fair — a gateway that opens readily for genuine grievances and remains firmly shut against abuse.