Allahabad High Court

ANKUR GARGversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Decided: 10 September 2026
Bench: VIKRAM D CHAUHAN

Holding

The cognizance order was invalid for violating Section 223 of the BNSS and was set aside, with the matter remanded for fresh consideration after hearing.

Summary

The applicant, Ankur Garg, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash a cognizance order dated 29‑January‑2025 issued by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, in a complaint under Sections 132(1)(b), (c) and (i) of the CGST Act, 2017. The applicant contended that the summons and cognizance were issued without complying with Section 223 of the BNSS, which mandates that the accused be given an opportunity of hearing before cognizance is taken. The opposite party (CGST) argued that a hearing is required under the CGST Act. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 223 BNSS and held that the magistrate had indeed taken cognizance without granting the applicant a hearing, rendering the order illegal. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for a fresh decision after hearing the parties. The application under Section 528 BNSS was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a magistrate can take cognizance of an offence on complaint under the CGST Act without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard as required by Section 223 of the BNSS.

Legislation cited

BNSS — s. 223, 528
CGST Act, 2017 — s. 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(i)

Subjects

Section 528
Section 223
BNSS
CGST Act
cognizance
hearing
quash order
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29853 of 2026

Ankur Garg
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

Union Of India And Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Markandey Rai, Pradeep Kumar Rai,
Swatantra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dhananjay Awasthi

Court No. - 55
HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard Sri Markandey Rai, learned counsel along with Sri Pradeep Kumar
Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned
counsel for the CGST.

2. The present application has been filed by the applicant for quashing the
impugned cognizance order dated 29.1.2025 passed by Special Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 1058 of 2024 (Union of
India, DGGI Vs. Ankur Garg & Ors), arising out of Case No. 1323 of 2024,
under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(i) of CGST Act, 2017, pending
before the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is being
proceeded under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(i) of CGST Act,
2017, however, complaint was filed by opposite party before the trial court
without complying the provisions of Section 223 of BNSS and without
giving opportunity of hearing to the applicant, the summoning order has
been issued which is bad in law.

4. Learned counsel for the CGST submits that there is requirement of giving
opportunity of hearing prior to issuing of summons under the CGST Act.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for opposite party submits that impugned
order dated 29.1.2025 has been passed without giving any opportunity of
hearing to the applicant in compliance of the provisions of Section 223 of
the BNSS. Section 223 of BNSS is quoted hereinbelow:-

"223. Examination of complainant.-(1) A Magistrate having jurisdiction
while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath
the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such
NA528 No. 29853 of 2026
2

examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the
complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate:

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

Provided further that when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate
need not examine the complainant and the witnesses-

(a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his
official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or

(b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another
Magistrate under section 212:

Provided also that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another
Magistrate under section 212 after examining the complainant and the
witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re-examine them.

(2) A Magistrate shall not take cognizance on a complaint against a public
servant for any offence alleged to have been committed in course of the
discharge of his official functions or duties unless-

(a) such public servant is given an opportunity to make assertions as to the
situation that led to the incident so alleged; and

(b) a report containing facts and circumstances of the incident from the
officer superior to such public servant is received."

As such, the matter may be remanded back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate
concerned for decision afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the
applicant.

6. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for opposite party, the
impugned order dated 29.1.2025 passed by Special Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 1058 of 2024 (Union of India,
DGGI Vs. Ankur Garg and others), arising out of Case No. 1323 of 2024,
under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(i) CGST Act, 2017 is hereby set
aside and the matter is remanded back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate
concerned for decision afresh. The applicant shall appear before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate concerned on 28.9.2026. On the aforesaid date, after
hearing both the parties, fresh order shall be passed on the complaint of
opposite party no. 2.
NA528 No. 29853 of 2026
3

7. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the application under Section
528 BNSS is allowed.

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)
September 11, 2026
VMA

Digitally signed by :-
VISHWA MOHAN ARORA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…