Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) – Section 225
This section deals with the procedure to be followed by a Magistrate when a complaint is filed against an accused residing outside the Magistrate’s jurisdiction.
Code:
(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.
Explanation:
Section 225(1) empowers a Magistrate to postpone the issuance of process against an accused residing outside the Magistrate’s jurisdiction. The Magistrate can choose to either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation by a police officer or another designated person to determine the sufficiency of grounds for proceeding.
However, the section also includes two important provisions:
- Section 225(1)(a) prohibits the Magistrate from directing an investigation if the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session.
- Section 225(1)(b) requires the examination of the complainant and witnesses on oath under Section 223 before directing an investigation if the complaint was not made by a Court.
Section 225(2) permits the Magistrate to take evidence of witnesses on oath during the inquiry, but mandates calling upon the complainant to produce all witnesses and examine them on oath if the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session.
Section 225(3) empowers any person conducting an investigation under this section, except police officers, with the powers of a police station officer-in-charge, excluding the power to arrest without a warrant.
Illustration:
Suppose a person residing in Delhi files a complaint against an accused residing in Mumbai, alleging theft. The Magistrate in Delhi, having jurisdiction over the case, can postpone the issuance of process and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation by a police officer in Delhi or another designated person to determine if there are sufficient grounds for proceeding.
Common Questions and Answers:
- Q: What happens if the accused is residing abroad?
- A: Section 225 does not specifically address this scenario. However, in such cases, the Magistrate can consider seeking legal assistance from the appropriate authority in the foreign country.
- Q: Can the accused request the Magistrate to issue process without delay?
- A: The accused has the right to be heard and can request the Magistrate to expedite the issuance of process. The Magistrate can consider the accused’s request based on the circumstances of the case.
- Q: Can the Magistrate transfer the case to another Magistrate having jurisdiction over the accused’s residence?
- A: The Magistrate can consider transferring the case to another Magistrate having jurisdiction over the accused’s residence, particularly if it would expedite the trial and ensure fair justice. However, the decision would depend on the specific facts of the case.
