Examination of complainant
Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with examination of complainant. A Magistrate having jurisdiction while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the M The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) A Magistrate having jurisdiction while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate:
Provided that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard:
Provided further that when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses—
(a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or
(b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under section 212:
Provided also that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under section 212 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re-examine them.
(2) A Magistrate shall not take cognizance on a complaint against a public servant for any offence alleged to have been committed in course of the discharge of his official functions or duties unless—
(a) such public servant is given an opportunity to make assertions as to the situation that led to the incident so alleged; and
(b) a report containing facts and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to such public servant is received.
Section 223, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 200 Examination of complainant Text carried over almost unchanged 90%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Referred to by 5
- s. 215 . Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence
- s. 225 Postponement of issue of process
- s. 231 Supply of copies of statements and documents to accused in other cases triable by Court of Session
- s. 289 Application of Chapter
- s. 514 Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of period of limitation
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 200, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-5.pdf 2006-01-02 DATE VERIFIED. Crl A 2/2006. Pasayat/Kapadia. A Magistrate who directs investigation under CrPC 156(3) is not taking cognizance, so the complainant need not be examined on oath under s.200. Do NOT remap 156 (already filled). Do not remap 202/190/482.
On this section: Successor of CrPC 200 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9). The no-oath-when-directing-156(3) holding carries to BNSS 223.
-
Devendra Kishanlal Dagalia vs Dwarkesh Diamonds PVT LTD
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 200, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once a Magistrate has examined a complaint, taken cognizance of an offence, and issued summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate cannot thereafter recall or review that order by invoking Section 201 Cr.P.C. (which applies only to cases where the Magistrate is initially not competent to take cognizance). Relief post-issuance of summons must be sought before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution. Additionally, a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act is maintainable at any court having territorial jurisdiction over any location where any one of the five essential components of the offence (drawing, presentation, dishonour, notice, and non-payment within 15 days) occurred, and the complainant has discretion to choose such a court.
On this section: Requires Magistrate taking cognizance on complaint to examine complainant and witnesses. Court referenced this section in context of procedural requirements before issuing summons.
-
Thermax Ltd. vs K. M. Johny
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 200, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A dispute arising purely from contractual obligations, even when it results in financial loss to the claimant, cannot be converted into a criminal offense under Sections 405, 406 or 420 IPC without establishing the essential ingredient of dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. The appropriate remedy for breach of contract is a civil suit for damages, not criminal prosecution. When a complainant has previously filed identical complaints with police authorities which were investigated and closed as civil in nature, and thereafter files another complaint before a Magistrate suppressing such material facts and seeking criminal investigation, such action constitutes abuse of process of law. In the absence of specific statutory provision imposing vicarious liability on company directors and managers, they cannot be prosecuted under IPC sections for acts of the company. Section 34 IPC requires prior concert or meeting of minds with prearranged plan, which must be evident from the complaint itself.
On this section: Examination of complainant - Referenced in context of private complaints filed before Magistrate.
-
Sunita Bhagat vs Sebi
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 200, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act creates two classes of persons: (i) those who commenced collective investment activities prior to 25.1.1995 ('proviso category') who may continue until obtaining registration under the regulations; and (ii) those who did not ('non-proviso category') who are absolutely barred from commencing such activities until obtaining registration. The bar for the non-proviso category is self-executing and operative from 25.1.1995 regardless of when regulations are framed. However, criminal prosecution for regulatory non-compliance (such as failure to apply for registration under Regulation 5) requires that the accused was a director/officer of the company at the time the specific breach occurred. A director who resigned before the deadline for compliance cannot be prosecuted for breaches arising on or after the resignation date. The complaint must clearly disclose whether the accused is charged as a non-proviso category violator (commencing activity without authority) or merely as an existing operator who failed to comply with procedural regulations. Absence of such clarity, combined with the accused having exited before the breach date, renders prosecution unsustainable.
On this section: Procedure for taking cognizance of offence on complaint. Used for SEBI Act prosecutions.
-
Balveer Singh vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 200, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a Magistrate actively considers an application for cognizance, applies independent mind, and deliberately refuses cognizance of certain offences before committing case to Sessions Court, the Sessions Court can still take cognizance of those offences on a fresh application by the complainant, because: (1) Sessions Court is acting as court of original jurisdiction under Section 193 and cognizance taken by it is first cognizance for jurisdictional purposes; (2) The Magistrate's refusal order does not attain absolute finality that bars Sessions Court's revisional jurisdiction; (3) No valuable right accrues from such refusal order as it is not final adjudication on merits; and (4) Provided proper opportunity of hearing is given to the accused before Sessions Court takes such cognizance, the action is constitutionally valid. The distinction between Magistrate playing 'active role' (taking/refusing cognizance after hearing) versus 'passive role' (merely forwarding for commitment) becomes relevant when Magistrate has already actively decided against cognizance, but does not create an absolute bar.
On this section: Procedure for taking cognizance on complaint - Magistrate can resort to this before taking cognizance.
-
Priyanka Srivastava vs State of U. P.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 200, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving Section 156(3) CrPC applications, particularly in commercial disputes and debt recovery matters where statutory alternative remedies exist under special statutes like SARFAESI Act and Recovery of Debts due to Banks Act, a Magistrate must exercise strict judicial application of mind before ordering investigation. The Magistrate must: (1) Consider allegations in their entirety and nature, (2) Evaluate whether allegations remotely disclose cognizable offence, (3) Assess whether forwarding to police is conducive to justice, (4) Note dates of incidents and any abnormal delays in reporting, (5) Conduct preliminary enquiry in commercial dispute categories to verify credibility, (6) Consider legislative protections afforded to secured creditors under special acts like Section 32 SARFAESI Act, (7) Be vigilant against abuse of Section 156(3) as tool for harassment and extracting settlements. Mere mechanical order 'as per application' without stated reasons is erroneous. Applications under Section 156(3) should be supported by sworn affidavit from applicant, making applicant accountable for false allegations under Section 191 IPC. FIR registration, while mandatory under Section 154 upon cognizable offence information, does not mandate investigation if preliminary enquiry reveals lack of credibility. Criminal proceedings cannot be used to pressure financial institutions into favorable settlements in debt disputes where statutory forums (DRT/DRAT) exist for resolution.
On this section: Recording of complainant statement; Court referenced examination procedure before taking cognizance
-
Rakesh vs State of U. P.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 200, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Magistrate does not become functus officio (completely devoid of power) merely by accepting a police final report under Section 173 CrPC. The Magistrate retains the independent power to take cognizance of an offence on the basis of a complaint or protest petition filed by the first informant or complainant, even after accepting a negative final report, provided the Magistrate independently applies his mind to the facts and circumstances and follows the appropriate legal procedure under Sections 190, 200, and 202 CrPC. The mere acceptance of a final report does not foreclose or bar the exercise of this power.
On this section: Section 200 provides for examination of complainant upon oath; applicable when taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(a)
-
Mohit @ Sonu vs State of U. P.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 200, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An order of a trial court refusing to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not a purely interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. because it substantially affects the rights of the accused by determining whether they will face trial. Therefore, such order must be challenged through revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C., not through inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Additionally, when any court (whether exercising revisional or inherent jurisdiction) passes an order prejudicial to the rights of an accused or any person, such person has a fundamental right to notice and opportunity of hearing as mandated by Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. and the principles of natural justice before such prejudicial order is passed. The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only when no other specific remedy is available in the Code.
On this section: Procedure for magistrate to examine complaints and dismiss them without proceeding further if insufficient evidence
-
Gambhirsinh R. Dekare vs Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 200, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An Editor whose name is printed on a newspaper is presumed under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, to be responsible for the selection of matter published in every portion of the newspaper, including editions published from different locations with separate resident editors, unless the Editor proves to the contrary. At the stage of cognizance and issuance of process on a complaint, allegations of knowledge and involvement of the Editor in the publication of defamatory content must be accepted as true; the High Court cannot quash the prosecution based on an assumption that the Editor lacked knowledge when specific allegations establishing such knowledge are pleaded in the complaint. The presumption of editorial responsibility is rebuttable, but the burden to rebut it arises only after the allegation is established or at trial, not at the stage of cognizance.
On this section: Requirements for taking cognizance - reference made in discussion of Magistrate's power to issue process
-
Sunil Mehta vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 200, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Evidence recorded during preliminary inquiry under Section 202 CrPC before the accused appears in court cannot be used to frame charges against the accused under Section 246 CrPC without fresh evidence being produced and recorded under Section 244 CrPC in the presence and with the opportunity of cross-examination by the accused. The accused has a fundamental right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses before charges are framed, as this right is essential for the accused to demonstrate that allegations are groundless and no case exists warranting framing of charges. The scheme and procedure of Chapter XV (dealing with complaints and preliminary inquiry) is distinct from Chapter XIX Part B (dealing with trial of warrant cases on private complaint), and evidence recorded at the preliminary stage cannot substitute for evidence properly recorded under Section 244 in the presence of the accused.
On this section: Procedure for Magistrate taking cognizance on complaint with examination of complainant and witnesses on oath
-
R. Mohan vs A. K. Vijaya Kumar
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 200, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The court possesses the inherent power and authority under Sections 357(3), 421, and 431 of the Criminal Procedure Code, read in conjunction with Section 64 of the Indian Penal Code, to impose a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of compensation ordered by it. This power is not ancillary to other sentences but stands independently and is essential to the efficacy of compensation orders. Without such enforcement mechanism, compensation orders would be rendered illusory and the purpose of providing relief to crime victims would be frustrated. Therefore, a sentence in default of payment of compensation is legally valid and enforceable.
On this section: Filing of complaint; complainant filed complaint under this section after statutory notice
-
A. K. Vijaya Kumar vs R. Mohan
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 200, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a court imposes a sentence of imprisonment without a fine component under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it possesses the legal power and authority to award an alternative sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of the compensation amount ordered by that court, because (1) such power is necessary to give effect to Section 357(3)'s objective of ensuring victim compensation is not rendered illusory; (2) the absence of an enforcement mechanism with deterrent effect would frustrate the entire purpose of the compensation order; (3) Section 431 of CrPC puts compensation awards on par with fines for recovery purposes, and since Section 64 of IPC permits default imprisonment for non-payment of fines, the same principle applies to compensation; (4) the court may impose a reasonable compensation amount and provide reasonable time for payment, enforcing the order by imposing a default sentence, thereby ensuring both victim relief and proportionate deterrence against the offender.
On this section: Governs filing of complaints in criminal cases; the complainant filed a complaint under this section after issuing a statutory notice under Section 133 of NI Act
-
Rajeswar Tiwari vs Nanda Kishore Roy
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 200, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an employer has made statutory deductions from an employee's salary in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the Income Tax Act (Sections 192-206) and has properly deposited the deducted amounts to the credit of the employee or Central Government as required, allegations of illegal deduction do not disclose a case for criminal prosecution under Sections 406 or 120B IPC. Such disputes are essentially civil in nature and must be resolved through appropriate civil, administrative, or income tax authority channels, not through criminal prosecution. The High Court has an obligation under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of criminal process by quashing proceedings that convert civil disputes into criminal cases, particularly when statutory obligations have been performed and the dispute concerns the legitimacy or correctness of those actions rather than their performance itself.
On this section: Section 200 requires examination of witnesses at the time of receiving a complaint. The court noted that the Magistrate was required to apply judicial mind while issuing summons under Section 204.
-
C. G. Electricity Power Distribution Company LTD vs Basant Singh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 200, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused person repeatedly fails to appear before the court despite multiple summons issued through various methods over an extended period, and there is evidence suggesting the accused has knowledge of the proceedings but is deliberately absenting himself, the court may declare the accused a fugitive under Section 299 Cr.P.C. and Section 335 Cr.P.C., thereby authorizing the issuance of a permanent warrant for arrest.
On this section: Procedural provision relating to examination of complainant and witnesses in criminal cases
-
Kamar Jahan vs Aas Mohammad
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
If the names of the witnesses and the accused are clearly known, and no complex recovery of evidence by police is required, the Magistrate may accept the application under Section 175(3) of BNSS as a private complaint rather than directing a police investigation.
On this section: Recording of the statement of the complainant after taking cognizance as a complaint case.
-
PAWAN S/O GANGADHAR KULKARNI vs PRAKASH G SHETTY SINCE DECEASED R/BY HIS Lr. RAJESHWARI PRAKASH SHETTY
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 200, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When An Accused In A Criminal Trial Is Denied Reasonable Opportunity To Cross-Examine The Complainant's Witness And To Present Defence Evidence Due To Procedural Defects Such As Absence During Trial And Lack Of Proper Representation, The Conviction Passed By The Trial Court Violates Principles Of Natural Justice And Fair Trial, And The Appellate Court Must Set Aside The Conviction And Remand The Case For Fresh Trial From The Stage Of Cross-Examination To Ensure Compliance With Principles Of Natural Justice And Provide The Accused With A Fair Opportunity To Meet The Case Of The Prosecution.
On this section: Filing Of Complaint; The Respondent Filed Complaint Under This Section Against The Appellant
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… If the F.I.R is not registered on account of inaction on the part of the police officials or the actions not to the satisfaction of the petitioner, then the efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under sections 190, 200 of the Cr.P.C (sections 210, 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) or other statutory provisions under law. 6 . Therefore, the petitioner is given liberty to avail alternative remedies as provided under the Cr.P.C./Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for registration of the F.I.R. 7 . Accordingly, this application …
-
… S. Janaki reported as (2020) 16 SCC 728 . 5. If the F.I.R is not registered on account of inaction on the part of the police officials or the actions not to the satisfaction of the petitioner, then the efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under sections 190, 200 of the Cr.P.C (sections 210, 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) or other statutory provisions under law. 6. Therefore, the petitioner is given liberty to avail alternative remedies as provided under the Cr.P.C./Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for registration of the F.I.R. 7. Accordingly, this application is …
-
… If the F.I.R is not registered on account of inaction on the part of the police officials or the actions not to the satisfaction of the petitioner, then the efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under sections 190, 200 of the Cr.P.C (sections 210, 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) or other statutory provisions under law. 6. Therefore, the petitioner is given liberty to avail alternative remedies as provided under the Cr.P.C./Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for registration of the F.I.R. 7. Accordingly, this application is …
Questions about Section 223
What have the courts held on Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan (02 Jan 2006) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 200, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of CrPC 200 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9). The no-oath-when-directing-156(3) holding carries to BNSS 223. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2006 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNSS 223, section 223 BNSS, section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bnss 223 1 and bnss 223 in crpc. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan (02 Jan 2006).
What should I read with Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 212 (Making over of cases to Magistrates), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 5 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward CrPC 200 (Examination of complainant), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 223, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 359. Compounding of offences1355 words
- 187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours1122 words
- 2. Definitions956 words
- 243. Trial for more than one offence930 words
- 35. When police may arrest without warrant881 words
- 480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence823 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.