Allahabad High Court: Summoning Accused Constitutes Merely Taking Judicial Notice Of Material Placed Before Court; Doesn’t Amount To Determination Of Guilt

The Allahabad High Court emphasized that the act of summoning an accused constitutes merely the taking of judicial notice of the material placed before the Court, and does not amount to any determination of guilt or innocence.

The Court was deciding a Criminal Miscellaneous Application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking to quash the chargesheet along with the summoning order.

A Single Bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri observed, “This Court further finds that the explanation submitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate to be satisfactory to some extent; however, the Magistrate is directed to exercise greater caution in future while passing summoning orders. The Magistrate shall bear in mind that the act of summoning an accused constitutes merely the taking of judicial notice of the material placed before the Court in the form of a charge-sheet or complaint, and does not amount to any determination of guilt or innocence.”

The Bench enunciated that there is a distinction between a trial of summons-case instituted on a complaint and a trial of summons-case instituted on a police report, i.e. in a trial of summons-case instituted on a complaint, the procedure prescribed under Sections 279 and 280 of the BNSS is applicable, whereas in a trial of summons-cases instituted otherwise than on a complaint (police report), the procedure mentioned under Section 281 of the BNSS is applicable.

Advocates Shaheen Bano and Shahnawaz Khan appeared for the Petitioners, while AGA Prateek Tyagi appeared for the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

On the written information of the opposite party regarding the alleged incident occurred, a non-cognizable report as per Section 174 of BNSS was registered against the alleged accused persons-Applicants. The allegation was that the opposite party and the Applicants were neighbours and the dispute was related to toilet waste drainage. It was alleged that the Applicants received government funding to build a soak-pit toilet, but they constructed a waste - water flowing toilet through drainage in the wrong manner. Because of this, dirty waste-water from Prempal's toilet flowed into the open drain and reached in front of opposite party’s house.

The opposite party had asked accused many times to repair it, but he did nothing. Thereafter, a large amount of waste again came into the drain near his house. When he complained about this, accused’s son became angry and abused him. After hearing the noise, the accused’s wife and his sons came there with sticks. They allegedly beat the opposite party and also abused him. When his son and his wife tried to save him, the accused persons allegedly beat them too and caused serious injuries. Hence, a case was registered and seeking quashing of the same, the accused approached the High Court.

Court’s Observations

The High Court in view of the above facts, said, “It is important to note that Section 281 of the BNSS does not contain any provision similar to Section 279. Under Section 279, in a trial of summons-case instituted on a complaint, if the complainant is absent or has died, the accused must be acquitted. However, in a trial of summons-case based on a police report, Section 281 does not provide for stopping the proceedings or for discharging or acquitting the accused on such grounds. Therefore, any discharge ordered in such a situation cannot be treated as an acquittal.”

The Court noted that in the trial of summons cases instituted on complaint, the Trial Court of Magistrate has the power under Section 279 BNSS to acquit the accused, if the Complainant is absent or has passed away, but under Section 281 BNSS, in the Trial of summons cases instituted on police report, the Trial Court of Magistrate does not have such power to acquit the accused in case of non-appearance of Complainant or his death.

“However, if the informant is not turning up for years, or in the event of his death, the accused may approach the High Court to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS (Corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.). The High Court, for the ends of justice, may quash the proceedings as the trial of a summons-case instituted on police report is pending for a long time, i.e. more than three years, the period/limit prescribed for taking cognizance”, it added.

The Court observed that the law does not support unnecessary delay in legal proceedings and the principle “lex dilationes abhorret” means that justice delayed amounts to justice denied.

“… long delays in trials defeat the very purpose of justice. If cases remain pending for years without valid reason, it affects the fundamental rights of the accused enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and weakens public trust in the justice system. Therefore, it is the duty of the courts to ensure that cases are decided within a reasonable time so that justice remains meaningful and effective”, it reiterated.

The Court elucidated that in the trial of summons-cases also, the provision of plea of bargaining has been provided under Sections 289 to 300 BNSS (corresponding Section 265-A to 265-L Cr.P.C.) and the application of the accused for plea of bargaining may be decided by the Magistrate as per the Sections 289 to 300 BNSS, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment not exceeding seven years.

“In case of trial of summons-cases instituted on complaint, if the Court has reached to a conclusion to convict any person, then in that event the Court may also pass such order as to the payment of costs to the victim from the accused person as per section 400 BNSS (corresponding section 359 Cr.P.C.)”, it further said.

The Court also noted that in the trial of summons cases, either instituted upon complaint or police report, the Trial Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate, may also release the accused on probation as per the provisions contained there under Section 401 BNSS (corresponding section 360 Cr.P.C.), as the trial in summons cases, the offences are punishable up to two years.

Conclusion

“This Court in catena of judgments directed that in case charge sheet is submitted in non cognizable offence, the trial court shall take cognizance on the charge-sheet as a complaint and proceed the trial as trial of summons-case instituted on a complaint and follow the provisions, those have been mentioned for trial of summons-cases instituted on complaint”, it added.

The Court, therefore, concluded that all Magistrates/Presiding Officers shall scrupulously comply with the directions issued by the Court, particularly those mandating that their name, designation, and judicial ID be clearly mentioned below their signatures on every Order passed by them, in conformity with the Circulars issued by the Registrar General of the High Court pursuant to Orders passed in judicial proceedings.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Application, quashed the impugned cognizance-cum-summoning order, and remanded the case to the Judicial Magistrate.

Cause Title- Prempal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:212689)

Click here to read/download the Judgment