DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINTS AND REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO COMPLAINANTS UNDER THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA

THE REDWOOD JOURNAL Website: www.the redwood lawyers.com VOLUME:-6 ISSUE NO:-6 , OCTOBER 7,  2026 ISSN (ONLINE):- 3139-7360 Email: theredwoodjournal@gmail.com Digital Number : 2025-23534643 CC BY-NC-SA Authored By:-   Sandhiya K   DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINTS AND REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO COMPLAINANTS UNDER THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS DOWNLAD FULL PAPER :- DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINTS AND REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO COMPLAINANTS UNDER THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 A CRITICAL ANALYSIS Abstract The dismissal of a criminal complaint can have a serious impact on a complainant’s ability to seek justice. A complaint may be dismissed because the Magistrate finds insufficient grounds to proceed, because the complainant fails to appear, or because of procedural defects and other legal limitations. Although the criminal justice system must protect individuals from baseless prosecution, it must also ensure that genuine complaints are not rejected without proper consideration. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which came into force on 1 July 2024, provides the procedural framework governing criminal complaints and the remedies available when a complaint is dismissed. Section 226 specifically deals with dismissal of a complaint where the Magistrate finds no sufficient ground for proceeding. Other provisions govern the absence of complainants, the issue of process, and the appellate and revisional jurisdiction of superior courts. This paper examines the legal grounds for dismissal of criminal complaints, the duty of Magistrates to record reasons, and the remedies available to aggrieved complainants. It also considers the distinction between dismissal before the accused is summoned and dismissal that results in the accused’s acquittal. Particular attention is given to the scope of revision, appeals against acquittal, the possibility of filing a second complaint in exceptional circumstances, and the limitations on a Magistrate’s power to recall a final order. The paper analyses relevant Supreme Court decisions, including Pramatha Nath Taluqdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar and Maj. Genl. A.S. Gauraya v. S.N. Thakur. It concludes that effective remedies require reasoned judicial orders, correct identification of the applicable statutory provision, timely legal action, and a balanced approach that protects both the complainant’s right to seek justice and the accused’s right to fair process. Keywords: Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; dismissal of complaint; complainant’s remedies; criminal revision; appeal against acquittal; second complaint. Introduction A criminal complaint is often the first formal step through which an individual seeks the intervention of a criminal court. A person who believes that an offence has been committed may approach the competent Magistrate and place the relevant facts before the court. The complaint may relate to physical injury, criminal intimidation, cheating, defamation, property-related offences, or other alleged violations of criminal law. For many complainants, approaching a court is not merely a procedural exercise; it is an attempt to obtain recognition of the alleged wrong and secure a lawful remedy. However, filing a complaint does not automatically result in criminal proceedings against the person named as the accused. The Magistrate must independently consider whether the legal requirements for proceeding with the complaint have been satisfied. A complaint that does not disclose a criminal offence, lacks sufficient grounds for proceeding, or fails to meet applicable procedural requirements may be dismissed. Such judicial scrutiny is necessary because criminal proceedings can seriously affect an individual’s liberty, reputation, finances, and personal life. At the same time, the power to dismiss a complaint must be exercised carefully. A genuine complaint may be rejected because relevant material has not been properly appreciated, a procedural requirement has been misunderstood, or the reasons recorded by the court are legally insufficient. In some cases, a complaint may be dismissed because the complainant or the complainant’s advocate is absent on a hearing date. The legal consequences of these different forms of dismissal are not identical. The distinction is particularly important under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Section 226 provides for dismissal of a complaint when, after considering the relevant statements and the result of any inquiry or investigation under Section 225, the Magistrate concludes that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding. By contrast, Section 272 deals with the absence of a complainant in specified circumstances before the charge has been framed. Section 279 governs non-appearance or death of a complainant in summons cases and may result in acquittal, subject to the terms of that provision. These provisions illustrate that the expression “dismissal of complaint” can describe legally different situations. The complainant’s remedy depends on the nature of the order, the stage of the proceedings, and the statutory provision invoked by the Magistrate. The central objective of this paper is to examine these distinctions and identify the remedies available to complainants under Indian criminal procedure. It argues that the right to challenge an adverse order must be understood alongside the principle that criminal courts cannot exercise powers that the statute does not confer upon them. Research Methodology This paper adopts a doctrinal method of legal research. It examines the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the corresponding principles developed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and judicial decisions of the Supreme Court of India. The study is analytical in nature and focuses on the legal consequences of different forms of dismissal and the remedies that may be pursued by complainants. Primary legal sources include the statutory provisions governing the examination of complaints, dismissal for want of sufficient grounds, absence of complainants, appeals against acquittal, and revisional jurisdiction. Judicial decisions are examined to understand how courts have interpreted these provisions and balanced the interests of complainants and accused persons. The research does not rely on empirical interviews or field surveys. Its principal limitation is that it concentrates on general criminal procedure rather than providing an exhaustive examination of every special statute. Proceedings under laws such as the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, may involve additional statutory requirements and should be analysed separately where necessary. Legal Framework Governing Dismissal Of Complaints The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 The BNSS replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as the principal procedural legislation for criminal cases, subject to the applicable transitional provisions and special laws.