The Supreme Court of India has held that a Magistrate is mandatorily required to invoke Section 225 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) before proceeding against an accused who resides outside the territorial limits of the Magistrate’s jurisdiction. A Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale allowed the appeal filed against the judgment dated March 23, 2026, passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRMM No. 15721/2026.

The Appellant, Rajeev Mehta @ Rajiv Kishor Kirtilal Mehta, had challenged criminal proceedings initiated before a Magistrate on two principal grounds. The first was that the Trial Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint — an issue that was specifically raised before the High Court but was left unanswered by it. The second was that the mandatory procedure under Section 225 of the BNSS was not followed by the Magistrate before invoking powers under Section 223 of the BNSS, which deals with the examination of a complaint, particularly given that the Appellant was admittedly residing in Mumbai, which falls outside the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned Magistrate. The High Court upheld the proceedings without insisting upon compliance with Section 225 of the BNSS and also failed to adjudicate upon the jurisdictional objection raised by the Appellant, whereupon the Appellant approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition.

Section 223 of the BNSS empowers a Magistrate to take cognizance of offences and examine a complaint, and this power is available only to a Magistrate who has jurisdiction over the matter. Section 225 of the BNSS provides that upon receipt of a complaint, where the accused person resides at a place beyond the area of the Magistrate’s jurisdiction, the Magistrate must — upon satisfying himself of this fact — either inquire into the complaint himself or direct an investigation before proceeding further.

On the issue of non-compliance with Section 225 of the BNSS, the Supreme Court found considerable force in the submissions advanced on behalf of the Appellant. The Court held that Section 225 of the BNSS, in specific terms, mandates that its procedure must be followed upon receipt of a complaint where the accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate. The Court observed that “it is mandatory on the part of the Magistrate to press into service Section 225, upon satisfying himself that the accused person is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises jurisdiction.” Since the Appellant was admittedly residing in Mumbai, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned Magistrate, the High Court’s finding upholding the proceedings was set aside. The Court held that “the finding on issue No. 2 by the High Court stands set aside, as accepting the said contention would make Section 225 as otiose and redundant.”

On the issue of territorial jurisdiction, the Supreme Court noted that this issue was specifically raised before the High Court but was not adjudicated upon at all. The Court held that Section 223 of the BNSS is amenable only to a Magistrate who possesses jurisdiction and that the Magistrate must first satisfy himself that he does, in fact, have jurisdiction before proceeding with the complaint. The Court held that when an issue of jurisdiction is specifically raised before a court, it is obligatory upon that court to decide it one way or the other. The matter was accordingly remitted to the High Court to decide the jurisdictional question, with a direction that “the High Court to pass appropriate orders on the same within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” The Court further made it clear that no opinion had been expressed on the factual averments or submissions relating to the jurisdictional issue, leaving the same entirely open for the High Court’s consideration.

Pending the decision of the High Court on the jurisdictional issue, the Supreme Court stayed all proceedings before the Trial Court. The appeal was accordingly allowed. The Appellant was represented by Senior Advocates Mr. Kapil Sibal and Mr. Gautam Narayan, along with other counsel, and the Respondent was represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Devdutt Kamat and others.

Cause Title: Rajeev Mehta @ Rajiv Kishor Kirtilal Mehta v. Param Bir Singh

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (@SLP (Crl.) No. 5873/2026)

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Date of Decision: April 10, 2026

Click HERE to read the ORDER