Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

Pre-Cognizance Notice Without Sworn Statement is Illegal: J&K High Court Stays Defamation Case Against ‘Article 370’ Filmmakers

12 February 2026 11:33 AM

By: sayum


“Opportunity of Hearing Under Section 223 BNSS Cannot Be an Empty Form” —  In a significant order High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar stayed criminal complaint proceedings against filmmakers Aditya Dhar and others, observing that the Forest Magistrate, Srinagar, had issued pre-cognizance notices without complying with the mandatory statutory procedure under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi held that the issuance of notice without recording sworn statements of the complainant and witnesses rendered the Magistrate’s action prima facie unsustainable in law, and noted that such mechanical exercise of judicial power amounted to non-application of mind.

The interim relief was granted in CRM(M) No. 36/2026, filed under Section 528 BNSS, challenging the order dated 30.12.2025 passed by the Forest Magistrate in a defamation complaint related to the filmmakers' recent movie, ‘Article 370’.

“Recording of Complainant’s Statement on Oath is Mandatory Before Issuing Notice” – High Court Upholds Procedural Sanctity Under BNSS

The petitioners, including film director Aditya Dhar, his associates, and their production company, moved the High Court to quash the complaint filed by Ghulam Mohammad Shah, who alleged that he had been depicted as a terrorist in the film Article 370, thereby causing reputational harm.

The complaint had been filed under Section 210 BNSS, read with Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), invoking the offence of defamation. However, the petitioners challenged the procedural correctness of the notice dated 30.12.2025, arguing that the Magistrate had not recorded any sworn statement of the complainant or witnesses, a step mandatorily required under Section 223 BNSS before issuing notice.

The petitioners are involved in film production and had released a movie titled ‘Article 370’. The respondent, a local resident, alleged that his photograph was used in the movie to portray a terrorist character, thereby tarnishing his image and injuring his reputation.

A criminal complaint was filed before the Forest Magistrate, Srinagar. However, instead of following the sequential steps prescribed under BNSS, the Magistrate issued a pre-cognizance notice without any preliminary examination of the complainant or his witnesses on oath.

This procedural lapse became the fulcrum of the challenge before the High Court.

The core legal question before the Court was whether a Magistrate can issue a pre-cognizance notice under Section 223 BNSS without recording the sworn statements of the complainant and witnesses.

Justice Kazmi unambiguously held in the negative, reiterating the procedural requirements under Section 223(1) BNSS, which states:

“A Magistrate… shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present… and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing… and signed by the complainant, the witnesses and also by the Magistrate.”

The Court clarified that the opportunity of hearing granted to an accused under the proviso to Section 223(1) cannot be rendered an empty formality and must be preceded by the examination of the complainant and witnesses, with all material including the complaint, sworn statements, and supporting documents provided to the accused.

“Opportunity of being heard would not mean an empty formality… The notice that is sent to the accused shall append to it the complaint, the sworn statement, and statements of witnesses if any, for the accused to appear and submit his case before taking of cognizance,” the Court observed, quoting the Karnataka High Court judgment dated 07.03.2025.

Magistrate’s Conduct Criticised for “Non-Application of Mind”

The High Court took strong exception to the manner in which the Forest Magistrate had acted:

“Notices have been issued to the applicant without recording the statements of the complainant and witnesses, which is against the prescribed procedure under the BNSS. The notice is a blank notice without filling the blanks and only mentions the name of the applicant. Such notice is legally untenable,” the Court held.

The Court found that the record from the Forest Magistrate's court did not contain any sworn statements of the complainant or witnesses, nor did it reflect any application of judicial mind. This omission, in the Court's view, vitiated the entire process and compromised the right of the accused to a fair hearing.

The Court aligned its reasoning with judgments of the Allahabad High Court (2025 SCC OnLine All 4884) and the Kerala High Court, as well as a coordinate bench of the J&K High Court in Prateek Agarwal, all of which had similarly held that non-compliance with Section 223 BNSS amounts to procedural illegality, justifying judicial intervention.

Court Orders Interim Stay on Complaint Proceedings

Taking into account the prima facie illegality of the Magistrate’s action, the High Court directed:

“In the meantime, subject to objections of the other side and till the next date of hearing before the Bench, the proceedings in the complaint filed by respondent shall stay.”

The case has been listed for further hearing on 23.03.2026, with the Court granting liberty to either side to seek alteration or modification of the interim order, if necessary.

The Court also dispensed with the requirement of filing certified copies of the impugned order and complaint for the time being, subject to their submission within two weeks.

This order underscores the vital importance of procedural discipline in criminal complaints under the new BNSS framework, particularly when complaints are initiated by private individuals alleging reputational harm. The High Court’s interim stay not only protects the accused’s right to a fair process but also sends a clear message to the Magistracy to adhere strictly to statutory mandates.

In the evolving landscape of BNSS and BNS, this ruling will likely serve as an early precedent, especially for media-related litigation, where allegations of defamation, portrayal, and reputation are expected to rise.

Date of Decision: 06.02.2026

Latest Legal News