Non‑Cognizable Charge‑Sheets as “Complaints” and the Right to Pre‑Summoning Hearing under BNSS – Commentary on Prempal v. State of U.P.

1. Introduction

The judgment in Prempal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another, decided by the Allahabad High Court on 26 November 2025 by Hon’ble Praveen Kumar Giri, J., is one of the earliest and most elaborate expositions on how the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is to be applied to non‑cognizable offences, particularly where the police have filed a “charge‑sheet”.

Two major themes run through the judgment:

Re‑characterisation of non‑cognizable charge‑sheets as “complaints”, mandating that Magistrates take cognizance under Section 210(1)(a) BNSS (complaint cases) rather than under Section 210(1)(b) (police report), in light of the Explanation to Section 2(1)(h) BNSS.
Introduction of a substantive pre‑summoning hearing right for accused persons in all complaint cases – including those originating from such police reports – by virtue of the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS, a provision which has no counterpart in the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

The case arises from a neighbourhood dispute over drainage of toilet effluent that escalated into allegations of assault and abuse, leading to registration of a Non‑Cognizable Report (NCR) and, ultimately, a charge‑sheet under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) for:

Section 115(2) BNS – Voluntarily causing hurt (max 1 year)
Section 352 BNS – Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace (max 2 years)

Both offences are non‑cognizable and bailable, and are triable by any Magistrate as summons‑cases. The critical procedural error identified by the High Court is that the Magistrate treated the case as a “police case” under Section 210(1)(b) BNSS and issued summons without following the complaint‑case safeguards mandated by the new code.

2. Factual and Procedural Background

2.1 Factual Matrix

The applicants (Prempal and his family members) and the complainant (Ramnath, opposite party no. 2) are neighbours. The dispute concerned the alleged faulty construction of a government‑funded soak‑pit toilet at Prempal’s house, resulting in waste water flowing through an open drain and accumulating in front of Ramnath’s house.
On 10.08.2024, at about 2:30 p.m., it was alleged that:
- Ramnath protested over the waste water flowing near his house.
- Prempal’s son Shriram allegedly abused him.
- Prempal’s wife Premwati and his sons Akhilesh and Neeraj allegedly came armed with sticks, assaulted Ramnath, and abused him.
- When Ramnath’s son Gautam @ Jaipal and wife Rajkumar intervened, they too were allegedly beaten and sustained serious injuries.

2.2 Registration of NCR and Investigation

On Ramnath’s written complaint, an NCR was registered on 10.08.2024 as N.C.R. No. 178 of 2024 under:
- Section 115(2) BNS (corresponding to Section 323 IPC – simple hurt), and
- Section 352 BNS (corresponding to Section 504 IPC – intentional insult).
As the offences were non‑cognizable, Section 174 BNSS was attracted:
- The NCR was recorded under Section 174(1) BNSS.
- The police obtained an order from the Magistrate under Section 174(2) BNSS, authorising investigation.
- Investigation was thereafter conducted under Section 174(3) BNSS.
Upon completion, a police report/charge‑sheet under Section 193(3) BNSS, dated 05.10.2024, was submitted, alleging commission of offences under Sections 115(2) and 352 BNS, and naming the applicants as accused.

2.3 Cognizance and Summoning Order

On 11.12.2024, the Judicial Magistrate, Tilhar, Shahjahanpur:
- Took cognizance under Section 210(1)(b) BNSS, i.e. “upon a police report”.
- Registered the case as Case No. 12922 of 2024, State v. Prempal.
- Issued summons to the accused applicants.
- Recorded that after perusal of the evidence collected by the I.O., offences under Sections 115(2) and 352 BNS were prima facie made out.
The Magistrate:
- Did not treat the police report as a “complaint”, as mandated by the Explanation to Section 2(1)(h) BNSS for non‑cognizable offences.
- Did not afford a pre‑summoning hearing to the accused, as required by the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS in complaint cases.
- Even failed to mention his name, designation and judicial ID below his signature on the order, contrary to High Court circulars.

2.4 Petition under Section 528 BNSS

Aggrieved, the applicants approached the High Court under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC), seeking:

Quashing of the charge‑sheet dated 05.10.2024, and
Quashing of the cognizance‑cum‑summoning order dated 11.12.2024, in so far as it proceeded as a police‑report case rather than a complaint case, in alleged violation of BNSS provisions.

3. Summary of the Judgment

The High Court held that:

The offences under Sections 115(2) and 352 BNS are non‑cognizable, bailable, and triable as summons‑cases. Under the Explanation to Section 2(1)(h) BNSS, a police report disclosing only non‑cognizable offences must be treated as a “complaint”, and the I.O. as the “complainant”.
Consequently, the Magistrate was bound to:
- Take cognizance under Section 210(1)(a) BNSS (complaint), not under Section 210(1)(b) BNSS (police report).
- Follow the procedural safeguards applicable to complaint‑based summons‑cases, particularly:
  - Opportunity of hearing to the accused before taking cognizance and issuing process, as per the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS.
  - Other checks such as limitation, jurisdiction, sanction, and list of witnesses.
The Magistrate’s omission to treat the police report as a complaint and failure to afford a pre‑summoning hearing violated the statutory procedure, amounting to infraction of Article 21 (life and personal liberty “except according to procedure established by law”).
The High Court therefore:
- Quashed and set aside the cognizance‑cum‑summoning order dated 11.10.2024/11.12.2024.
- Remanded the matter to the Judicial Magistrate to pass a fresh order:
  - Treating the police report as a complaint (per Explanation to Section 2(1)(h) BNSS);
  - Taking cognizance, if at all, under Section 210(1)(a) BNSS; and
  - Proceeding in accordance with the complaint‑case procedure, especially the directions in paragraphs 14 and 26 of the judgment.
The Court also:
- Issued guidance on the correct procedural routes for:
  - Summons‑cases instituted on complaint;
  - Summons‑cases instituted on police report; and
  - Use of Sections 279, 280, 281 and 400 BNSS to manage pendency.
- Reiterated that Magistrates must clearly mention their name, designation and judicial ID below their signatures in all orders.

4. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

4.1 Anurag Yadav & Ors. v. State of U.P., 2020 (Allahabad High Court)

This decision, rendered under the CrPC, held that where a charge‑sheet relates to non‑cognizable and bailable offences (e.g. Sections 323, 504 IPC), the Explanation to Section 2(d) CrPC mandates that such a report be treated as a complaint, and not as a police case. Accordingly, cognizance taken as a state case was held to be illegal and was quashed.

The present judgment extends that reasoning into the BNSS context, now under the Explanation to Section 2(1)(h) BNSS, treating such police reports as complaints and requiring application of complaint‑case procedure under Section 210(1)(a) BNSS.

4.2 Keshav Lal Thakur v. State of Bihar, (1996) 11 SCC 557

In Keshav Lal Thakur, the Supreme Court held:

Where an offence is non‑cognizable, the police cannot register an FIR under Section 154 CrPC or investigate without an order under Section 155(2) CrPC.
Whereafter investigation into a case originally registered as cognizable, it emerges that only non‑cognizable offences are made out, the police report would be treated as a complaint in terms of the proviso/Explanation to Section 2(d) CrPC.

The High Court here uses this authority to reinforce the doctrinal continuity: under BNSS as under CrPC, a police report in a purely non‑cognizable case is not a true “police report” for purposes of ordinary cognizance, but is statutorily deemed to be a complaint.

4.3 Ghanshyam Dubey @ Little & Ors. v. State of U.P., 2013 (4) ADJ 474

This Allahabad High Court decision held that where the charge‑sheet is only for non‑cognizable offences (323, 504, 506 IPC in that case, after the UP notification on Section 506 IPC was held invalid),:

The charge‑sheet must be deemed a complaint under the Explanation to Section 2(d) CrPC.
The police officer who submitted the report is deemed the complainant.
Cognizance as a “state case” is illegal and liable to be set aside.

This precedent is directly paralleled in the BNSS framework in Prempal, anchoring the Court’s conclusion that the Magistrate’s treatment of the case as a police‑report case under Section 210(1)(b) BNSS was fundamentally erroneous.

4.4 Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State Of U.P., 2007 (9) ADJ 478

In that case, an FIR was initially registered under Section 307 IPC, but after investigation the I.O. submitted a charge‑sheet only under Section 504 IPC (non‑cognizable). The Court held that such a charge‑sheet is to be treated as a complaint under Section 2(d) CrPC. This case is cited to underline that what matters is the nature of the offences at the stage of final report, not the initial classification.

4.5 Alok Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court, 26.11.2023)

In this decision, a charge‑sheet filed in a non‑cognizable offence without any order of the Magistrate under Section 155(2) CrPC was held to be a complaint under Section 2(d) CrPC. This reinforces two points:

The necessity of Magisterial authorisation before investigation of non‑cognizable offences; and
The inevitable conversion of such reports into complaints when they relate only to non‑cognizable offences.

4.6 Hemant Tiwari v. State Of U.P., and Smt. Geeta & Ors. v. State of U.P.

Relying on the Supreme Court in Vijay Dhanuka & Ors. v. Najima Mamtaj & Ors., (2014) 14 SCC 638, these decisions held:

Under Section 202 CrPC (now Section 225 BNSS), it is mandatory for a Magistrate to conduct an inquiry or direct an investigation before issuing process where the accused resides beyond his territorial jurisdiction.
Failure to do so defeats the very object of the provision.

In Prempal, this principle is incorporated into the BNSS framework (Section 225 BNSS) and listed among the multiple pre‑summoning checks a Magistrate must undertake in complaint cases (para 14).

4.7 Ravinder Kaur v. Anil Kumar, (2015) 8 SCC 286

The Supreme Court clarified that:

Dismissal of a complaint or discharge of an accused does not amount to acquittal for purposes of Section 300 CrPC (now Section 337 BNSS).
Therefore, double jeopardy principles do not bar a fresh complaint after such dismissal/discharge, since no trial on merits has occurred.

This is invoked in Prempal to explain that under Section 281 BNSS (power to stop proceedings in summons‑cases instituted otherwise than on complaint):

An order of discharge does not equate to acquittal and does not trigger double jeopardy.
An order of acquittal (possible under Section 281 only where evidence of principal witnesses has been recorded) does attract finality and double‑jeopardy protection.

4.8 Sirajul v. State of U.P., (2015) 9 SCC 201

This case is cited to emphasise the constitutional dimension of delay in criminal trials. The Supreme Court stressed that:

Inordinate delays in trial violate Article 21 and erode public faith in the justice system.
Courts must ensure that matters are decided within a reasonable time.

The High Court uses this to link procedural missteps, improper classification of cases, and misuse/non‑use of powers under Sections 279, 280, 281 BNSS to the constitutional mandate of speedy justice.

5. Court’s Legal Reasoning

5.1 Statutory Framework: Key BNSS/BNS Provisions

The Court undertakes an unusually detailed survey of the BNSS & BNS provisions, effectively creating a manual for Magistrates handling non‑cognizable summons‑cases. Central provisions include:

Section 174 BNSS – registration and investigation of non‑cognizable cases, requiring:
- Recording NCR (sub‑section 1);
- Magistrate’s order for investigation (sub‑section 2);
- Then regular investigative powers minus arrest without warrant (sub‑section 3);
- Deeming a case cognizable if it includes at least one cognizable offence (sub‑section 4).
Section 193 BNSS – police report on completion of investigation.
Section 2(1)(h) BNSS (with Explanation) – definition of complaint, with the crucial deeming fiction:
A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non‑cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant.
Section 210(1) BNSS – modes of taking cognizance:
- Clause (a): upon a complaint;
- Clause (b): upon a police report;
- Clause (c): upon other information or Magistrate’s own knowledge.
Section 223 BNSS – examination of complainant; with three important provisos, especially:
- First proviso (new): No cognizance shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard in complaint cases.
- Second proviso (a): When the complaint is in writing by a public servant acting in discharge of official duties, examination on oath of complainant and witnesses is not required.
Sections 225–227 BNSS – postponement of issue of process, dismissal of complaint, and issue of process, forming the core pre‑summoning decision‑making sequence.
Sections 274–281 BNSS – procedure for trial of summons‑cases, with:
- Sections 279, 280 and 400 relevant to complaint‑based summons‑cases; and
- Section 281 relevant to police‑report‑based summons‑cases.
Section 528 BNSS – inherent powers of the High Court, analogous to Section 482 CrPC.

5.2 The Central Holding: Deemed Complaint & Wrong Mode of Cognizance

The High Court’s key doctrinal move is to apply the Explanation to Section 2(1)(h) BNSS strictly:

The charge‑sheet under Sections 115(2) and 352 BNS disclosed only non‑cognizable offences, punishable up to 2 years.
By statutory fiction, the police report must be treated as a complaint, and the I.O. as the complainant.
Once treated as a complaint, cognizance could be taken only under Section 210(1)(a) BNSS, not under Section 210(1)(b).

The Magistrate, however, took cognizance under Section 210(1)(b) BNSS (as a police case) and proceeded as if it were a regular state‑prosecuted police‑report case. This was held to be a jurisdictional and procedural error.

5.3 Complaint‑Case Safeguards and the New Pre‑Summoning Hearing Right

A particularly significant aspect of BNSS – and of this judgment – is the insertion of the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS:

“Provided that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard.”

This requirement did not exist in the CrPC. Under the old regime, complaint cases under Section 200 CrPC proceeded ex parte at the pre‑summoning stage, with the accused first entering the picture only after process was issued.

Under BNSS, in all complaint cases (including those where a police report is deemed a complaint), a Magistrate must:

Verify multiple pre‑conditions (para 14 of the judgment), including:
- Territorial jurisdiction (Section 197 BNSS);
- Limitation (Section 514 BNSS);
- Requirement of sanction or written complaint for certain categories of offences (Sections 215, 217–222 BNSS);
- Whether the accused resides within jurisdiction and, if not, whether enquiry/investigation under Section 225 BNSS is necessary;
- Filing of list of witnesses (Section 227(2) BNSS).
Give the accused an opportunity of being heard before taking cognizance (Section 223(1) first proviso).
Then decide either:
- To dismiss the complaint (Section 226 BNSS) for lack of sufficient grounds, or
- To issue process (Section 227 BNSS) upon finding sufficient ground to proceed.

By bypassing this entire complaint‑case architecture and proceeding as a police‑report case, the Magistrate:

Denied the accused their to a pre‑summoning hearing, and
Followed a procedure not “established by law”, thereby infringing Article 21.

5.4 Summons‑Cases: Complaint vs Police Report – Why Classification Matters

The Court goes to considerable lengths (paras 24–33) to explain how the procedural rules differ depending on whether a summons‑case is instituted on complaint or on police report.

5.4.1 Summons‑Cases Instituted on Complaint (e.g., deemed complaints under 2(1)(h) BNSS)

Key features under BNSS:

Applicable provisions include Sections 274–280, 289, 290, 400, 401.
Section 279 BNSS – Non‑appearance or death of complainant:
- If the complainant does not appear, after giving 30 days’ time, the Magistrate must ordinarily acquit the accused.
- The same applies where non‑appearance is due to death of the complainant.
Section 280 BNSS – Withdrawal of complaint:
- Complainant may withdraw the complaint any time before final order.
- On withdrawal with Court’s permission, the accused is to be acquitted.
Section 400 BNSS – Costs in non‑cognizable cases:
- On conviction, Court may order the accused to pay costs (process‑fee, witnesses, advocate’s fees, etc.) to the complainant, in addition to substantive punishment.

These provisions reflect the traditional logic of complaint cases: greater control in the hands of the complainant, and stronger mechanisms to protect private complainants and deter frivolous or vexatious conduct.

5.4.2 Summons‑Cases Instituted on Police Report (Section 281 BNSS)

For summons‑cases “instituted otherwise than on complaint” (i.e., on police report), Section 281 BNSS is the governing special provision:

A first‑class Magistrate (or other Magistrate with prior sanction of CJM) may, at any stage:
- Stop the proceedings without pronouncing judgment; and
- Where principal witnesses’ evidence has been recorded, pass a judgment of acquittal;
- Otherwise, release the accused, such release having the effect of discharge.

Crucially, as the Court notes:

There is no parallel to Section 279 here. Mere non‑appearance or death of the informant does not automatically result in acquittal.
A discharge under Section 281 BNSS does not amount to acquittal and therefore does not trigger double‑jeopardy protection (see Ravinder Kaur).

Thus, misclassifying a non‑cognizable charge‑sheet case as a police‑report case:

Deprives the accused of the automatic acquittal/safeguards under Sections 279 and 280 BNSS in appropriate situations.
Tends to prolong pendency, as the case may linger without effective participation of the original informant.

5.5 Pendency, Inherent Powers and Article 21

The Court expressly links procedural correctness to case‑load management and Article 21:

In complaint‑based summons‑cases (including those deemed so under Section 2(1)(h) BNSS), Sections 279 and 280 BNSS enable the Court to:
- Acquit the accused on sustained non‑appearance or death of complainant; or
- Acquit the accused upon withdrawal with Court’s leave.
In police‑report summons‑cases, Section 281 BNSS allows Magistrates to stop proceedings and discharge or acquit, depending on the stage.

However, where a police‑report‑based summons‑case drags on for years because the informant is not appearing or has died, and the Magistrate does not exercise Section 281, the High Court observes:

The accused may invoke the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to seek quashing of proceedings.
The High Court may, “to secure the ends of justice”, quash such stale summons‑cases, particularly where they have been pending beyond three years – the outer limit for taking cognizance of many petty offences (Section 514 BNSS).
Long‑pending trivial prosecutions in such situations can amount to a violation of Article 21.

While this part of the judgment is obiter (the present case is not such a long‑pending matter), it establishes a framework for future use of Section 528 BNSS to control pendency and uphold the right to speedy trial.

5.6 Directions and Administrative Guidance to Magistrates

The Court concludes with two sets of directions:

Substantive/procedural: Magistrates must:
- Treat police reports disclosing only non‑cognizable offences as complaints (Explanation to Section 2(1)(h) BNSS).
- Take cognizance under Section 210(1)(a) BNSS in such cases.
- Strictly comply with:
  - Pre‑summoning checks listed in para 14 (jurisdiction, limitation, sanction, etc.);
  - Opportunity of hearing to the accused before cognizance (first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS);
  - Complaint‑case trial procedure, including Sections 274–280, 289, 290, 400, 401 BNSS, where applicable.
Administrative: All Magistrates/Presiding Officers must:
- Ensure that their name, designation and judicial ID are clearly mentioned below their signatures on every order.
- Comply with High Court Circulars dated 23.08.2018 and 19.07.2023 issued by the Registrar General.

6. Impact and Significance

6.1 Consolidation of the “Deemed Complaint” Doctrine under BNSS

While the deemed complaint fiction existed in CrPC (Explanation to Section 2(d)), Prempal is one of the first BNSS‑era High Court decisions to:

Expressly apply the Explanation to Section 2(1)(h) BNSS in a fact‑specific manner.
Make it mandatory for Magistrates to treat all purely non‑cognizable charge‑sheets as complaints.
Draw the procedural consequences that follow: cognizance under Section 210(1)(a), not 210(1)(b), and trial as a summons‑case instituted on complaint.

This has far‑reaching implications:

Large numbers of NCR‑based prosecutions for minor hurt, abuse, etc. will now proceed as complaint cases, not as state‑prosecuted police‑report cases.
This classification affects:
- Rights of accused (pre‑summoning hearing, mechanisms for acquittal on complainant’s default);
- Control and autonomy of complainants (right to withdraw, claim costs);
- Case‑flow and pendency management.

6.2 Operationalising the New Pre‑Summoning Hearing Right

By insisting that non‑cognizable charge‑sheet cases are complaint cases, the Court ensures that the new pre‑summoning hearing right in the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS:

Is not reduced to a dead letter;
Extends even to minor offences initially investigated by the police; and
Becomes a genuine tool against frivolous or retaliatory criminal litigation.

In practice, Magistrates must now hear the accused before deciding whether to:

Dismiss the complaint (Section 226 BNSS); or
Issue process (Section 227 BNSS).

This is a substantive shift in Indian criminal procedure under BNSS, enhancing procedural fairness at the very threshold.

6.3 Guidance on Pendency and Use of Sections 279, 280, 281 BNSS

The Court’s distinction between Sections 279/280 (complaint‑based summons‑cases) and Section 281 (police‑report‑based summons‑cases) will:

Encourage proper classification at the outset; and
Provide a conceptual toolkit for Magistrates and High Courts to:
- Dispose of deadwood cases where complainants/informants have lost interest or died;
- Balance the right to speedy trial with the public interest in prosecution.

By suggesting the use of Section 528 BNSS to quash stale summons‑cases, the judgment also lays down a principled route for High Courts to intervene in petty prosecutions that have lost meaningful purpose.

6.4 Administrative Discipline and Judicial Accountability

Though ancillary, the insistence on:

Clear identification of the presiding judicial officer on all orders; and
Scrupulous compliance with High Court circulars;

signals a concern with institutional discipline and transparency. Such directions, when read with the detailed statutory analysis, reflect a broader project of:

Standardising BNSS‑compliant practices across subordinate courts; and
Reducing avoidable procedural errors that later generate higher‑court litigation.

7. Complex Concepts Simplified

7.1 Cognizable vs Non‑Cognizable Offences

Cognizable offence (Section 2(1)(g) BNSS): Police can arrest without warrant. Examples: murder, robbery, rape.
Non‑cognizable offence (Section 2(1)(o) BNSS): Police cannot arrest without warrant and cannot investigate without Magistrate’s order. Examples include minor hurt and certain insult/abuse offences (as in this case).

7.2 Complaint vs Police Report

Complaint (Section 2(1)(h) BNSS): Allegation made to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action. It does not include a police report, except for the special deeming fiction.
Police report (Section 2(1)(t) BNSS): Report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate under Section 193(3) BNSS after investigation of an offence.
Deeming fiction: When the police report, after investigation, discloses only non‑cognizable offences, it is treated as a complaint by law.

7.3 Summons‑Case vs Warrant‑Case

Warrant‑case (Section 2(1)(z) BNSS): Offence punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment exceeding two years.
Summons‑case (Section 2(1)(x) BNSS): Any case which is not a warrant‑case – i.e. punishment not exceeding two years, or fine only.
Summons‑cases have simplified procedure – no formal charge is framed; only the substance of accusation is stated to the accused (Section 274 BNSS).

7.4 Cognizance

“Taking cognizance” is a technical expression. In simple terms, it means:

The Magistrate applies his judicial mind to the material (complaint/police report) to decide whether there is a prima facie case to proceed.
It is not the same as finding someone guilty or framing charges.
In BNSS, cognizance can be taken:
- On complaint (Section 210(1)(a));
- On police report (Section 210(1)(b)); or
- On other information or Magistrate’s knowledge (Section 210(1)(c)).

7.5 Discharge vs Acquittal

Discharge:
- Occurs at an earlier, preliminary stage of proceedings.
- Does not involve a full trial on evidence.
- Does not bar fresh proceedings on the same facts; double‑jeopardy protections do not apply.
Acquittal:
- Follows a trial on evidence (or equivalent substantive adjudication).
- Attracts finality: the person cannot be tried again for the same offence (Article 20(2) of the Constitution; Section 337 BNSS).

7.6 Inherent Powers of High Court (Section 528 BNSS)

Inherent powers allow the High Court to:
- Give effect to any order under BNSS;
- Prevent abuse of the process of court; and
- Secure the ends of justice.
Typical uses include:
- Quashing criminal proceedings where the allegations do not disclose an offence;
- Intervening in excessively delayed, trivial prosecutions that have become oppressive.

8. Conclusion

Prempal v. State of U.P. is a foundational BNSS‑era judgment that accomplishes three things:

It clarifies and enforces the “deemed complaint” rule under the Explanation to Section 2(1)(h) BNSS, making it obligatory for Magistrates to treat charge‑sheets in purely non‑cognizable offences as complaints and to take cognizance under Section 210(1)(a).
It operationalises a major new procedural safeguard introduced by BNSS: the pre‑summoning hearing for accused persons in all complaint cases (Section 223(1) first proviso), thereby significantly enhancing fairness at the entry point of the criminal process.
It offers a structured roadmap for handling summons‑cases (complaint‑based and police‑report‑based), integrating:
- Sections 279, 280, 281, 400, 401 BNSS for effective case disposal;
- Use of inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to address long‑pending trivial prosecutions; and
- The overarching constitutional mandate of Article 21 requiring that no person be deprived of liberty except by a procedure established by law that is both correct and timely.

By quashing the impugned summoning order and remanding the matter with clear directions, the High Court not only corrects the error in the individual case but also sets down a binding template for subordinate courts in Uttar Pradesh on how to deal with non‑cognizable offences under BNSS. The judgment will likely be cited as an important precedent for:

Ensuring accurate classification of criminal cases under the new codes;
Protecting accused persons from procedural shortcuts in petty prosecutions; and
Aligning day‑to‑day criminal procedure with the guarantees of due process and speedy trial under the Constitution.