Punjab & Haryana High Court
Whereas dismissing the Petition of Police Officers difficult a summoning order issued in a case involving allegations of custodial loss of life, the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Court docket has noticed that for taking cognizance u/s 210(1)(c) of BNSS, 2023 and to concern course of, it isn’t compulsory for the Court docket to file statements of the witnesses and even to name for the aggrieved occasion.
The Petitioners (Police Officers) had approached the Excessive Court docket difficult the order handed by the Judicial Justice of the Peace First Class Justice of the Peace whereby whereas taking cognizance below part 210(1)(c) of BNSS, 2023, all of them had been summoned below Sections 103, 238, 340 r/w 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS, 2023) (corresponding Sections 302, 201, 470,471 learn with part 149 IPC).
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Vashisth mentioned, “Due to this fact, within the opinion of this Court docket for taking cognizance u/s 210(1)(c) of BNSS, 2023 and to concern course of, it isn’t compulsory over the Court docket to file statements of the witnesses and even to name for the aggrieved occasion. Naked studying of the supply is completely primarily based upon the satisfaction of the Justice of the Peace, who involves know of taking place of some offence, on his personal or even upon info from any particular person, apart from the police officer. Not solely this, Justice of the Peace can take cognizance completely on the idea of his personal data additionally for committing an offence, and thereupon, no particular process is required to be adopted or adopted earlier than issuance of course of vis-à-vis the suspect. Nevertheless, even in a warrant case, if thinks match, Justice of the Peace can direct the accused to be introduced earlier than it just by issuing summon for look by advantage of Part 227(1)(b) of BNSS, 2023.”
Advocate P.S. Ahluwalia represented the Petitioners, whereas DAG Amandeep Singh represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The Inspector was knowledgeable that Baljinder Singh @ Billa, an accused needed in a felony case, had come to the home of the co-accused, however he wasn’t discovered there when the raid was performed. Nevertheless, Inspector Navpreet Singh together with the police occasion, tracing the mentioned particular person reached the thermal plant lakes, the place they noticed one younger man sitting on the bike, and the opposite standing close to him, speaking to one another. The particular person who was standing was Bhinder Singh @ Kaka Nihang, who allegedly jumped into the lake.
Bhinder Singh was rescued however was later declared useless. The brother of the deceased made a written criticism throughout the jail inspection, alleging that his brother Bhinder Singh, was illegally detained, interrogated, and tortured to loss of life by the police with none fault. The District & Periods Choose, Bathinda, gave method to provoke an inquiry. The report concluded that Bhinder Singh was within the unlawful custody of CIA-1 when he died below suspicious circumstances. Summons had been thereby issued to the accused individuals.
Reasoning
The Bench defined that the Justice of the Peace’s energy to take cognizance below part 210(1)(c) is unique, unbiased and of holistic worth. To take away any doubt or apprehension of biases of the summoned accused, laws has inserted Part 211, making it compulsory for the Justice of the Peace to apprise the summoned accused of his proper to file an objection after which to proceed as per the consequential instructions issued by the Chief Judicial Justice of the Peace in that behalf. “…from the naked studying of the provisions, it’s clear that energy to take cognizance u/s 210(1)(c) is unique and unbiased, nonetheless, on summoning of the accused, it could be topic to the necessary compliance of Part 211 of BNSS, 2023”, it mentioned.
As per the Bench, the apprehension of the petitioners that there was no assertion or doc to be equipped to them gave the impression to be unfounded as a result of the detailed impugned order recommended that there was sufficient materials earlier than the Justice of the Peace whereas taking cognizance on the judicial aspect and it was completely on the idea of Justice of the Peace’s satisfaction that course of has been issued for graduation of the proceedings.
The Bench was of the view that the plea of the petitioners that with out recording any recent proof on oath, and so forth., a Justice of the Peace is barred from taking cognizance below 210(1)(c), who himself performed inquiry u/s 196 of BNSS, 2023, was misconceived and misplaced. Coming to the problem relating to the issuance of the method of inflicting look via summons or warrant, the Bench famous that the petitioner had approached the Court docket prematurely with out having any alleged grievance for violation talked about below Part 231(iii) of BNSS, 2023.
“As soon as it’s noticed that judicial inquiry carries wider scope than the inquiry conduced u/s 194 of BNSS, 2023, allegation of the petitioners that the Justice of the Peace, who performed judicial inquiry may not himself train the facility of taking cognizance u/s 210(1)(c) of BNSS, 2023, can also be discovered to be baseless. Furthermore, summoned accused can be free to specific his apprehension of any bias within the objection utility, if any, is considered filed u/s 211 of BNSS, 2023”, it mentioned.
Thus, discovering no irregularity within the order handed by the Justice of the Peace, the Bench dismissed the petition.
Trigger Title: Navpreet Singh and Others v. State of Punjab (Impartial Quotation: 2025:PHHC:077563)
Look
Petitioner: Advocates P.S. Ahluwalia, Bhavi Kapur, Prince Goyal
Respondent: DAG Amandeep Singh
