The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has set aside an order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM)-IV, Lucknow, directing issuance of fresh notices to accused persons in a private complaint, holding that once the accused have already appeared and participated in proceedings, re-issuance of notice is unwarranted.
Justice Brij Raj Singh allowed an application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), challenging the Magistrate’s order dated 17 October 2025 passed in a complaint filed against TransUnion CIBIL and other parties, including GIC Housing Finance Limited.
The complaint alleged serious offences of forgery and fabrication, asserting that the applicant was wrongly reported as a wilful defaulter to CIBIL despite no outstanding dues and without issuance of any demand notice by the lender. The Magistrate had already examined the complainant under Section 223 BNSS and recorded statements of witnesses under Section 225 BNSS.
The High Court noted that notices had been issued earlier on 8 November 2024, service upon the accused was complete, and several accused had already entered appearance through counsel. Despite this, the Magistrate directed the complainant to take fresh steps for issuance of notices, relying on the first proviso to Section 223 BNSS.
Rejecting this approach, the Court held that the right of the accused to be heard at the pre-cognizance stage stood satisfied once they appeared pursuant to valid service of notice. It observed that insistence on fresh notice, despite admitted appearance and participation, would only delay proceedings and had no statutory basis.
Distinguishing the earlier decision in Prateek Agarwal v. State of U.P. , 2024 SCC OnLine All 8212, the Court clarified that in the present case, statements of the complainant and witnesses had already been recorded after service of notice, making re-issuance unnecessary.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned order dated 17 October 2025 and directed the trial court to proceed with the complaint case in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made by the High Court.
Appearances:
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aviral Raj Singh, Ashutosh Verma, Ritwick Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
