Vinay Pratap Singh v. Pushpendra Singh, 2026

The complainant, Vinay Pratap Singh, was engaged in the business of supplying gravel through Hyva dumpers to a construction company.

On 30 October 2023, approximately 1800 litres of diesel were purchased for operational purposes and stored at his farmhouse because there was no nearby fuel station.

The complainant alleged that due to a prior business rivalry, the respondents pressured him to arrange an illegal advance payment of ₹1 crore and threatened to implicate him in false criminal cases.

It was alleged that the respondents, along with certain police officials, unlawfully entered the farmhouse, assaulted him, threatened him, and forcibly removed the fuel without following any lawful seizure procedure.

The complainant further alleged that an FIR subsequently registered at Mauganj Police Station alleging robbery was fabricated to shield the illegal acts committed against him.

To support his allegations, the complainant relied upon electronic evidence, including CCTV footage.

He instituted a private complaint alleging offences under Sections 323, 294, 506 and 34 IPC.

During the proceedings, he contended that the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS only requires that the accused be heard before cognizance is taken and does not require supply of all evidence at that stage.

However, on 17 January 2026, the Magistrate directed the complainant to provide all documents and electronic evidence to the proposed accused and warned that non-compliance would result in dismissal of the complaint.

When the complainant failed to comply fully with the direction, the complaint was dismissed on 22 January 2026 solely on that ground.

Aggrieved by the dismissal, the complainant approached the High Court under Section 528 BNSS.

The High Court held that the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS is intended to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice by providing the proposed accused an opportunity of hearing before cognizance is taken.

The Court clarified that such an opportunity does not automatically create an obligation to supply the entire evidence to the accused at the threshold stage.

The Court observed that the proceedings were still at the stage of consideration of cognizance and therefore full disclosure of evidence was not mandatory.

The Court found that the Magistrate had adopted an incorrect approach by insisting upon complete disclosure of all documents and electronic evidence before considering cognizance.

The Court held that the Trial Court ought to have examined whether partial compliance with its directions was sufficient instead of mechanically dismissing the complaint.

The Court emphasized that dismissal of a complaint involving serious allegations without examining the merits or procedural fairness results in a miscarriage of justice.

The Court therefore set aside the impugned order and restored the complaint case.

The Trial Court was directed to proceed further in accordance with law.

The judgment provides an important interpretation of the newly enacted Section 223 BNSS.

The Court struck a balance between the accused's right to be heard and the complainant's right to have the complaint considered on merits.

The decision clarifies that the hearing contemplated by the proviso is procedural in nature and does not amount to a full-fledged right of pre-trial discovery.

The judgment prevents unnecessary procedural burdens from being imposed on complainants at the cognizance stage.

By restoring the complaint, the Court reaffirmed that procedural requirements should not be applied in a manner that defeats substantive justice.

The ruling strengthens the principle that courts must avoid mechanical dismissal of complaints and instead evaluate procedural fairness in its entirety.

The judgment is likely to serve as an important precedent concerning the scope of Section 223 BNSS and the rights of proposed accused persons before cognizance is taken.