The Allahabad High Court has clarified that a complainant’s statement recorded under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) must fully capture all material allegations of cruelty, particularly in dowry-related cases. Failure to do so undermines the prosecution’s case and violates the right to a fair hearing, warranting remand for a fresh recording.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Saroj, filed an application under Section 173(4) BNSS against her husband, Ranjeet Yadav, and six other in-laws, alleging sustained cruelty and demand for additional dowry. The application was treated as a complaint case, and her statement was recorded under Section 223 BNSS. However, upon obtaining the certified copy of that statement, she discovered that the critical allegations in Paragraph 4 of her original application - detailing physical and mental abuse linked to dowry demands - were entirely omitted.
Key Facts
- The applicant filed her application under Section 173(4) BNSS on or before 10.01.2025, alleging cruelty and dowry harassment.
- Paragraph 4 of the application explicitly stated that the accused demanded additional dowry of Rs. 5,00,000 and subjected her to physical violence, threats, and humiliation.
- The statement recorded under Section 223 BNSS on 15.02.2025 omitted all references to dowry demands and the specific acts of cruelty described in Paragraph 4.
- The applicant filed an application under Section 223 BNSS on 20.02.2026 seeking re-recording of her statement to include the omitted allegations.
- The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 06, Agra, rejected the application on 25.02.2026, holding that the statement had already been recorded and could not be altered.
Procedural History
- 10.01.2025: Application under Section 173(4) BNSS filed by Saroj against Ranjeet Yadav and six others.
- 15.02.2025: Statement of complainant recorded under Section 223 BNSS, omitting key allegations from Paragraph 4.
- 20.02.2026: Applicant filed application under Section 223 BNSS for re-recording of statement.
- 25.02.2026: Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the application.
- 15.03.2026: Application under Section 528 BNSS filed before the Allahabad High Court.
- 29.04.2026: High Court delivered judgment.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought quashing of the order dated 25.02.2026, direction to record her statement afresh under Section 223 BNSS with full allegations, and consequential relief in the complaint case.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a complainant’s statement recorded under Section 223 BNSS may be re-recorded when it materially omits allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment that were explicitly pleaded in the original application under Section 173(4) BNSS.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
Learned counsel argued that Section 223 BNSS mandates a complete and accurate recording of the complainant’s version, as it forms the foundation of the prosecution’s case. Omitting the core allegations of dowry demand and cruelty rendered the statement incomplete and misleading, violating the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair trial. Reliance was placed on State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das and K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to underscore the constitutional imperative of truthful and full disclosure in criminal proceedings.
For the Respondent
The Additional Government Advocate contended that once a statement is recorded under Section 223 BNSS, it cannot be recalled or re-recorded, as it would open the floodgates to manipulation. The court below had correctly applied the principle of finality in procedural matters, and the applicant’s remedy, if any, lay in cross-examination or rebuttal evidence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the purpose of Section 223 BNSS, which replaces the earlier Section 161 CrPC in the context of complaint cases. It emphasized that the statement under this provision is not merely an investigative tool but a foundational document upon which the magistrate determines whether to proceed under Section 239 BNSS. The omission of material allegations - particularly those concerning dowry harassment and cruelty - strips the prosecution of its evidentiary backbone.
"In absence of such material evidence, not occurring in the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 223 BNSS, can change the entire prosecution version."
The Court held that the magistrate’s refusal to permit re-recording was arbitrary and legally unsustainable. The complainant’s right to have her full version recorded is not a procedural formality but a substantive safeguard against miscarriage of justice. The court below failed to appreciate that the omission was not a minor discrepancy but a deletion of the very essence of the complaint. The principle of finality cannot override the duty to ensure that the record reflects the truth as alleged by the complainant.
The Court further noted that Section 528 BNSS empowers the High Court to correct manifest errors of law or procedure that result in substantial injustice. The rejection of the application under Section 223 BNSS constituted such an error.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The High Court set aside the order dated 25.02.2026 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, in Complaint Case No. 14565 of 2025. The matter was remitted to the same court to pass a fresh order after giving the applicant an opportunity to record her statement afresh under Section 223 BNSS, incorporating all allegations from Paragraph 4 of her original application. The court directed that this be completed within 15 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Statement Under Section 223 BNSS Must Be Complete
- Practitioners must immediately flag any omission of material allegations in Section 223 BNSS statements, especially in dowry and cruelty cases.
- A partial or sanitized statement cannot sustain a prosecution; the complainant’s full version is mandatory.
Remand Is the Correct Remedy, Not Quashing
- Courts should not quash proceedings for incomplete statements but must remand for re-recording under Section 223 BNSS.
- This preserves the prosecution’s opportunity to prove its case while upholding procedural fairness.
Judicial Discretion Must Serve Substantive Justice
- Magistrates cannot invoke procedural finality to deny a complainant the right to correct a materially defective statement.
- The focus must be on truth, not technical compliance.
