Final Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CR No. : 551/2025
Braham Parkash Lathwal Vs. Vikram Bhukal @
Fauzi
CNR No. : DLCT01-14470-2025
04.10.2025
Present: Revisionist in person.
None for respondent.
1. TCR not received.
2. Notice to respondent not received back. Affidavit of
service on behalf of revisionist filed stating that respondent has
been served on 29.09.2025 through Speed Post and through
Whats-app on 27.09.2025.
3. I deem it appropriate service.
4. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist submits that the accused
cannot be granted an opportunity of being heard prior to issuance
of summons as prescribed under proviso to Section 223(1) of
BNSS, 2023. It is argued by the revisionist that he has filed the
application and the Ld.Trial Court did not decided the
application. It is submitted that no orders were passed on his
application. It is further argued that by virtue of Section 5 of
BNSS, 2023 the Ld.Trial court had committed an error in
granting an opportunity to the accused of being heard at the pre-
cognizance stage. It is submitted that the offence punishable u/s
138 N.I. Act is a Special Law and hence the provision of Section
223 (1) of BNSS are not applicable.
5. I have heard the revisionist and perused the record.
6. The question raised before this court is whether the Ld.
Trial Court could have given an opportunity of being heard to the
-- 1 of 2 --
:2:
proposed accused as provided under proviso to Section 223 (1) of
BNSS, 2023.
7. Under proviso to Section 223 (1) of BNSS, 2023 the
Magistrat is barred from taking cognizance unless an opportunity
is granted to the accused of being heard. This issue has been
answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Sanjabij Tari Vs.
Kishore S. Borcar & Anr. Crl. Appeal no. 1755 of 2010 decided
on 25.09.2025 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
categorically held that there is no requirement to issue summons
to the accused in terms of Section 223 of BNSS,2023 at the pre-
cognizance stage. The relevant para is reproduced as under:-
“E. Recently, the High Court of Karnataka in Ashok Vs.
Fayaz Aahmad, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 490 has taken
the view that since NI Act is a special enactment, there
is no need for the Magistrate to issue summons to the
accused before taking cognizance (under Section 223 of
BNSS) of complaints filed under Section 138 of NI Act.
This Court is in agreement Criminal Appeal
No.1755/2010 with the view taken by the High Court of
Karnataka. Consequently, this Court directs that there
shall be no requirement to issue summons to the accused
in terms of Section 223 of BNSS i.e., at the pre-
cognizance stage”.
8. In light of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
the Magistrate is directed not to hear the accused before taking
cognizance. With these observations the revision petition is
disposed off.
9. Revision file be consigned to Record Room. Copy of this
order be given dasti.
(ANKUR JAIN-I)
ASJ-04/Central/Delhi.
04.10.2025 km
-- 2 of 2 --