Procedure by Magistrate not competent to take cognizance of case
Section 224 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with procedure by Magistrate not competent to take cognizance of case. If the complaint is made to a Magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance of the offence, he shall,— (a) if the complaint is in writing, return it for presentation to the proper Court with an endorsement to that effect; The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
If the complaint is made to a Magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance of the offence, he shall,—
(a) if the complaint is in writing, return it for presentation to the proper Court with an endorsement to that effect;
(b) if the complaint is not in writing, direct the complainant to the proper Court.
Section 224, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 201 Procedure by Magistrate not competent to take cognizance of the case Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Devendra Kishanlal Dagalia vs Dwarkesh Diamonds PVT LTD
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 201, 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: Applies when Magistrate is not competent to take cognizance and requires return of complaint to proper court. Court held this section cannot be applied after summons has been issued under Section 204, as no review power exists post-issuance of summons.
-
Kaushik Chaterjee vs State of Haryana
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 201, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The question of territorial jurisdiction in criminal proceedings is a question of fact that must be established through evidence and cannot be decided at the transfer petition stage. The trial court, not the Supreme Court, is the appropriate forum to decide jurisdictional issues after evidence is led on the place of commission of the offence and other relevant factors enumerated in Sections 177 to 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, transfer petitions seeking transfer on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction must be dismissed, leaving it open to the parties to raise and have the trial court decide the jurisdictional issue during the trial.
On this section: Provides limited power to a Magistrate to return a complaint before taking cognizance, available only to a Magistrate not competent to take cognizance. This power is limited to complaints, not police reports.
-
Sunil Mehta vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 201, 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 not competent to take cognizance
-
L. Deben Singh vs Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 201, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A cognizance order taken by a court against a public servant for an offence allegedly committed during discharge of official duty without prior prosecution sanction under Section 197 CrPC is void ab initio and non-existent in the eye of law from its very inception. Consequently, when such void cognizance is set aside and the case is remanded for de novo committal process after obtaining the mandatory prosecution sanction, the subsequent cognizance taken by the competent court after proper committal does not constitute double cognizance but is the first and only valid cognizance. The principle that cognizance can be taken only once applies within the framework of valid legal proceedings, and a void cognizance order is not counted as a valid cognizance for this purpose.
On this section: Offence of causing disappearance of evidence; one of the charges against accused persons
-
Gopichand Hanmantrao Chate vs Entertainment Network (india) LTD through Authorized
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 201, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Exclusion of limitation under the proviso to Section 142(b) of the NI Act requires a formal application explaining sufficient cause; mere recitals in the complaint are insufficient to exercise judicial discretion for condonation of delay.
On this section: Procedure when a Magistrate is not competent to take cognizance.
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.
Questions about Section 224
What have the courts held on Section 224 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Devendra Kishanlal Dagalia vs Dwarkesh Diamonds PVT LTD (25 Nov 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 201, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Applies when Magistrate is not competent to take cognizance and requires return of complaint to proper court. Court held this section cannot be applied after summons has been issued under Section 204, as no review power exists post-issuance of summons. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2011 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 224 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 224, section 224 BNSS, section 224 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type 224 bnss in crpc and bns 224 4. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Devendra Kishanlal Dagalia vs Dwarkesh Diamonds PVT LTD (25 Nov 2013).
What should I read with Section 224 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward CrPC 201 (Procedure by Magistrate not competent to take cognizance of the case), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 224 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 224 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 224, 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.