Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 225
Postponement of issue of process
(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 212, may, if he thinks fit, and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding: Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made,—
(a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or
(b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 223.
(2) In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath: Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath.
(3) If an investigation under sub-section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Sanhita on an officer in charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant.
Why this exists
This provision continues the scheme of the old CrPC Section 202 (amended in 2005 to make the inquiry mandatory when the accused lives far away). Its purpose is to prevent innocent people—especially those residing outside the court's jurisdiction—from being dragged into unnecessary criminal proceedings on flimsy or false private complaints. By requiring a preliminary check into whether there is 'sufficient ground for proceeding,' it acts as a filter against harassment through frivolous litigation before the accused is even summoned.
How courts read it
Under the identical CrPC provision, the Supreme Court in cases like Vijay Dhanuka v. Najima Mamtaj (2014) held that when the accused resides outside the Magistrate's jurisdiction, conducting an inquiry or investigation under this section is mandatory, not discretionary. Courts have also clarified (e.g., Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of West Bengal) that this inquiry is meant only to decide if there is a prima facie case, not to conduct a mini-trial. These interpretations are expected to guide BNSS Section 225 as it largely reproduces the earlier provision.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: The Magistrate must always order a police investigation before summoning the accused.
Fact: The Magistrate can either inquire personally or direct an investigation; ordering police investigation is not the only option, and in some cases (like Sessions-triable offences) it's barred. - Myth: This inquiry is like a mini-trial deciding guilt or innocence.
Fact: Courts have clarified it only decides whether there's enough ground to proceed further, not whether the accused is guilty.