Beyond the CrPC Hangover: Supreme Court Draws Hard Lines on BNSS Quashing, Jurisdiction, and PMLA Hearings

For the Indian criminal defense bar, the transition from the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) has felt less like a revolution and more like a high-stakes game of procedural musical chairs. But as the Supreme Court’s recent 2026 quarterly digest on the new criminal codes reveals, the dust is finally settling. And for defense practitioners, the emerging jurisprudence is surprisingly encouraging.

The Supreme Court is sending a clear, unequivocal message to trial courts and investigative agencies: the introduction of the BNSS is not a license to dilute procedural safeguards. From mandatory inquiries for out-of-jurisdiction accused to expanding the scope of quashing powers, the constitutional courts are actively molding the BNSS to curb state overreach and judicial mechanicalism.

Section 225 BNSS: The End of Casual Summons

One of the most consequential developments for daily practice is the Supreme Court’s strict interpretation of Section 225 of the BNSS (the successor to Section 202 of the CrPC). The Court categorically held that a Magistrate must conduct an inquiry or direct an investigation before proceeding against an accused residing outside their territorial jurisdiction.

Why does this matter? Because forum shopping in private complaints has long been a weapon of harassment. Corporate officers in Mumbai routinely find themselves summoned by Magistrates in remote districts of Uttar Pradesh or Bihar on flimsy cheating or defamation complaints. Under the old CrPC, the 2005 amendment making this inquiry mandatory was frequently bypassed by Magistrates who issued summons mechanically.

"By strictly enforcing Section 225 BNSS, the Supreme Court has fortified the statutory shield against malicious, cross-country prosecutions. Magistrates can no longer act as mere post offices for vindictive complainants."

For defense counsel, this is your first line of attack. If your client resides outside the Magistrate’s jurisdiction and a summons is issued under the BNSS without a recorded inquiry, the order is legally stillborn. Challenge it immediately.

Section 528 BNSS: Giving Teeth to the Inherent Powers

We are finally seeing how the Supreme Court intends to treat Section 528 BNSS, the reincarnation of the beloved Section 482 CrPC. In a highly pragmatic ruling, the Apex Court held that criminal proceedings can—and should—be quashed when reliable material disproves the allegations.

Historically, High Courts have been notoriously hesitant to look at "defense material" during a quashing petition, often citing the Bhajan Lal doctrine to claim that evaluating evidence is the trial court's domain. However, this recent ruling signals a judicial willingness to look at unimpeachable, sterling-quality documents produced by the defense to nip frivolous litigation in the bud.

The takeaway for practitioners is clear: do not wait for the trial to present bulletproof documentary evidence (like bank statements, public records, or undisputed contracts). If the material is incontrovertible, Section 528 BNSS is wide enough to entertain it and quash the FIR.

PMLA and BNSS: A Monumental Shift in White-Collar Defense

Perhaps the most seismic shift in the recent roundup comes from the intersection of the BNSS and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The Supreme Court has ruled that a pre-cognizance hearing of the accused is mandatory in a PMLA complaint when cognizance is taken post-BNSS.

In the draconian realm of the PMLA, where the Enforcement Directorate (ED) operates with terrifying latitude, cognizance is usually a one-sided affair happening entirely behind the back of the accused. By mandating a pre-cognizance hearing under the new BNSS framework, the Court has handed white-collar defense lawyers a golden opportunity. You now have a statutory right to torpedo weak, heavily doctored ED complaints before the grueling trial machinery officially kicks in and the impossible twin conditions of bail are triggered.

Striking Down "Abhorrent" Bail Conditions

Finally, the Supreme Court took a much-needed swing at the moral policing frequently exhibited by trial courts. In its May roundup, the Court declared bail conditions that require an accused to clean police stations or perform similar degrading acts as "abhorrent, degrading, and unknown to law," rendering them null and void.

Bail is a mechanism to secure the attendance of the accused, not an avenue for pre-trial penance or community service. This ruling serves as a vital reminder that fundamental rights under Article 21 do not evaporate just because an accused is seeking bail. High Courts and Sessions Courts must stick to the statutory parameters of the BNSS—securing flight risk and preventing witness tampering—rather than playing school headmaster.

Similarly, the Allahabad High Court’s ruling that a criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for default—and that an amicus curiae must be appointed if the accused is unrepresented—reinforces the principle that substantive justice under the new codes cannot be derailed by technical defaults.

The Verdict for Practitioners

The message from the Supreme Court is loud and clear: the BNSS is here, and its procedural safeguards will be enforced with rigor. For lawyers, the days of relying on muscle memory and outdated CrPC drafts are over. It is time to aggressively leverage Section 225 for jurisdictional defenses, push the boundaries of Section 528 with sterling evidence, and demand those pre-cognizance hearings in special statute cases. The law has changed; your strategy must evolve with it.