The Allahabad High Court has clarified that any summoning order issued after 01.07.2024 under the old IPC and CrPC framework is legally invalid, as the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) have fully replaced them. This ruling reinforces the mandatory transition to the new criminal codes and invalidates procedural irregularities rooted in repealed statutes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicants, Deep Chand and two others, were summoned by a Special Judge under the POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar, to face trial for alleged offenses under Sections 354, 354B, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The complaint was filed on 09.10.2024, well after the enforcement of the new criminal codes. The summoning order was passed on 29.11.2025, still referencing the repealed IPC and CrPC provisions.
Key Facts
- The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) came into force on 01.07.2024, replacing the IPC and CrPC respectively.
- The complaint in Case No.12 of 2024 was filed on 09.10.2024, after the new codes became operational.
- The impugned summoning order was passed on 29.11.2025, yet it cited IPC and CrPC sections, which were no longer in force.
- The applicants were not charged under the corresponding provisions of BNS or BNSS.
- The private opposite parties (complainant and witnesses) were not served notice, but the Court dispensed with their notice requirement.
Procedural History
- 09.10.2024: Complaint filed before Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar.
- 29.11.2025: Special Judge issued summoning order against applicants under IPC Sections 354, 354B, 504, 506 and POCSO Sections 7/8.
- 12.03.2026: Application under Section 528 BNSS filed before Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, seeking quashing of summoning order.
- 12.05.2026: Hearing concluded before Justice Brij Raj Singh.
Relief Sought
The applicants sought setting aside of the summoning order dated 29.11.2025 on the ground that it was issued under repealed laws, and requested that the trial court be directed to pass a fresh order in conformity with BNS and BNSS.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a summoning order issued after 01.07.2024 can validly rely on repealed provisions of the IPC and CrPC when the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) are fully in force.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Shri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the applicants, submitted that the filing of the complaint on 09.10.2024 and the issuance of the summoning order on 29.11.2025 occurred entirely after the enforcement of BNS and BNSS. He argued that Section 528 BNSS permits challenges to procedural irregularities in pending proceedings, and that the continued use of IPC and CrPC provisions after their repeal constitutes a jurisdictional error. He cited the principle that procedural law is prospective and must be applied as it stands at the time of the proceeding.
For the Respondent/State
Shri Vivek Gupta, learned Additional Government Advocate, opposed the application but conceded that BNS and BNSS came into force on 01.07.2024. He did not dispute the factual timeline or the repeal of IPC and CrPC, but argued that the substance of the allegations remained unchanged and that technicalities should not defeat justice. However, he offered no legal authority to justify the continued application of repealed statutes.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the commencement of BNS and BNSS on 01.07.2024 marked a complete legislative overhaul of criminal procedure and substantive law in India. The repeal of the IPC and CrPC was not partial or transitional; it was absolute and immediate. Any proceeding initiated after that date must conform to the new statutory framework.
"Once BNSS and BNS have come into force on 01.07.2024, the provisions of CrPC and IPC will not be applicable."
The Court emphasized that the summoning order dated 29.11.2025 was not merely a procedural misstep - it was a jurisdictional defect. The Special Judge, by invoking repealed provisions, acted without legal authority. The Court rejected the notion that the nature of the offense (POCSO) could override the mandatory application of the new criminal codes. The POCSO Act remains in force, but the procedural mechanism for summoning, framing charges, and conducting trial must now follow BNSS.
The Court further noted that Section 528 BNSS explicitly empowers High Courts to set aside orders passed in violation of the new code. The failure to invoke the correct provisions under BNS (which replaces IPC) and BNSS (which replaces CrPC) rendered the summoning order void ab initio.
The Verdict
The application was allowed. The summoning order dated 29.11.2025 issued by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar, in Complaint Case No.12 of 2024 is set aside. The trial court is directed to pass a fresh summoning order within eight weeks from the date of this judgment, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The Court directed the office to communicate this order to the concerned court forthwith.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must verify the operative code at the time of filing or issuance of any criminal process - whether summons, chargesheet, or warrant.
- Any order referencing IPC, CrPC, or other repealed statutes after 01.07.2024 is void and subject to immediate quashing under Section 528 BNSS.
New Codes Apply Prospectively to All Pending Proceedings
- Even if the complaint was registered before 01.07.2024, any order passed after that date must comply with BNS and BNSS.
- Courts cannot rely on old forms, formats, or statutory references; all pleadings and orders must use the new nomenclature (e.g., "Section 107 BNS" instead of "Section 506 IPC").
Judicial Oversight Must Be Vigilant
- High Courts must proactively scrutinize summoning and framing orders in cases initiated post-01.07.2024.
- Defense counsel should routinely challenge summoning orders citing outdated statutes as a matter of routine procedure.
