CRM-M-65918 v. State of Punjab

MANDEEP PANNU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: , Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sherry K. Singla Mr. Hardeep Singh, AAG Punjab Mr. Hardeep Singh, AAG Punjab -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. 482 of the Code of The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of The present petition has been filed under Section The present petition has been filed under Section Criminal Procedure for quashing of Complaint No. Criminal Procedure for quashing of of 2024 under Section 3(k) Complaint No. 866 of 2024 under Section 3(k) (i) 17, 18, 29 and 33 of Insecticide Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of Insecticides (i) 17, 18, 29 and 33 of Insecticide Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of Insecticides (i) 17, 18, 29 and 33 of Insecticide Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of Insecticides (i) 17, 18, 29 and 33 of Insecticide Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of Insecticides Rules 1971, titled as “State Vs. M/s Paul Pesticides and Others” Rules 1971, titled as “ , as also the State Vs. M/s Paul Pesticides and Others”, as also the summoning order dated 27.03.2024 (Annexure P summoning order dated Chief (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial for the Judicial Magistrate, whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial for the Judicial Magistrate, whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial for the Judicial Magistrate, whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial for the uential proceedings arising therefrom. aforesaid offences, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. aforesaid offences, along with all conseq

2. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer only to the fact that there is violation of Section 223 of the Bhartiya Nagarik only to the fact that there is violation of Section 223 of the Bhartiya Nagarik only to the fact that there is violation of Section 223 of the Bhartiya Nagarik only to the fact that there is violation of Section 223 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Inter alia, on this ground, the petiti Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. oner seeks quashing of , on this ground, the petitioner seeks quashing of the aforesaid complaint. the aforesaid complaint.

3. The principal objection raised by the petitioner is that the learned trial The principal objection raised by the petitioner is that the learned trial The principal objection raised by the petitioner is that the learned trial The principal objection raised by the petitioner is that the learned trial Court has taken cognizance and passed the summoning order without affording an Court has taken cognizance and passed the summoning order without affording an Court has taken cognizance and passed the summoning order without affording an Court has taken cognizance and passed the summoning order without affording an according to the petitioner, is opportunity of hearing to the accused, which, according to the petitioner, is opportunity of hearing to the accused, which, opportunity of hearing to the accused, which, mandatory under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. mandatory under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. mandatory under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. mandatory under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.06 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-65918-2025 (O&M) -2- The present petition has, thus, been filed questioning the complaint as well as the summoning order on the ground of non-compliance of the statutory mandate contained in Section 223 of the BNSS. Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita reads as under: “223. Issue of process.—If, in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall issue process against the accused: Provided that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard.”

4. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused before taking cognizance is mandatory in nature. Where such an opportunity has not been granted, the very act of taking cognizance and the consequential summoning order stand vitiated. In view of the admitted non-compliance of Section 223 of the BNSS, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the learned trial Court, with liberty to the petitioner to raise all permissible pleas before the trial Court. The learned Magistrate shall thereafter proceed to decide the matter afresh, strictly in accordance with law and after scrupulously complying with the mandate of Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kushal Kumar Agarwal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 (3) RCR (Criminal) 294, has held as under:- TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.06 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document “6. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 puts an embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance by providing that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard. CRM-M-65918-2025 (O&M) -3-

7. In this case, admittedly, an opportunity of being heard was not given by the learned Special Judge to the appellant before taking cognizance of the offence on the complaint. Only on that ground, the impugned order dated 20th April 2024, will have to be set aside.”

6. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in “Sikander Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement, Gurugram”, CRM-M-29954-2025, decided on 29.07.2025 has categorically held that affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused before taking cognizance under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is mandatory, even where the complaint was instituted prior to enforcement of the BNSS, provided cognizance is taken after its enforcement.”

7. The said principle squarely applies to the facts of the present case, as the present case stands on better footing. The complaint in the present case was filed after the enforcement of BNSS, 2023.

8. In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that there is violation of Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

9. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that the matter be remanded back to the trial Court, which shall proceed afresh after strictly complying with the provisions of Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all permissible pleas before the trial Court.

11. With these observations, the present petition stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. February 02, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.06 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document