Umar and Anr v State of Uttar Pradesh (2026): Accused Must Be Heard Before Cognizance Under BNSS
Date Published
The Supreme Court has clarified when a Magistrate is treated as having taken cognizance, and why that date decides whether the accused had a right to be heard. The ruling is Umar and Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1002), reported on 29 September 2026. The Bench was Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran.
A note on the title: the plan describes this post as being about Section 204 BNSS and summoning. The judgment I found concerns the proviso to Section 223 BNSS, the hearing of the accused before cognizance, and is the closest real match from the same period. The plan's Section 204 reference could not be confirmed from the source.
The facts in dates
The timeline matters here, so keep it in mind:
· 7 June 2022: FIR registered.
· 6 August 2022: police file a closure report.
· 14 October 2022: complainant files a protest petition. On 29 November 2022 the court orders further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC (now Section 193(9) BNSS).
· 14 February 2023: second closure report. 28 April 2023: another protest petition.
· 11 October 2023: the complaint is taken on board.
· 6 March 2024: complainant and witnesses are examined. The complainant is PW1, her husband PW2 and a doctor PW3.
· The matter then stays pending until 3 June 2026. On that date, the Special Judge (SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act) at Azamgarh finds a prima facie offence and issues process against the accused.
The BNSS came into force on 1 July 2024.
Read Also: Bail Refused in Cyber Crime Case: SC Ruling
The central question
Was cognizance taken on the protest petition filed under Section 200 CrPC before the BNSS came into force, or later?
What each side argued
The accused said the 3 June 2026 order took cognizance, and it came after the BNSS. They relied on Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement and argued that cognizance could be taken only after hearing the accused, as the proviso to Section 223 BNSS requires.
The State said cognizance had been taken before the BNSS.
The complainant said no formal order is needed. Relying on CREF Finance Ltd v. Shree Shanthi Homes (P) Ltd and Zunaid v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the complainant argued that cognizance is different from issuing process, and was taken when the complaint was accepted on the court's file.
Principles the Court drew on
· CREF Finance: cognizance is taken of the offence, not the offender. When a court is satisfied that the case discloses an offence and proceeds, it is taken to have taken cognizance. The term has no fixed meaning and depends on the statute.
· Zunaid: on a police report, a Magistrate may drop the matter, or take cognizance and issue process without being bound by the police conclusion, or take cognizance on the original complaint and examine the complainant and witnesses under Section 200 CrPC (now Section 223 BNSS).
· Parvinder Singh: under the BNSS, taking cognizance is the application of judicial mind. An inquiry cannot be said to have begun until judicial mind is applied. The BNSS adds the requirement to hear the accused first.
What the Court decided
Whether cognizance was taken depends on how the court dealt with the police report or protest complaint.
The earlier order on the protest petition found that an inquiry was justified and directed the complainant's evidence under Section 200 CrPC. The Court held that cognizance was not taken at that stage. The record then showed no orders for nearly two years.
The Court found that judicial mind was applied in the 3 June 2026 order, where the court found a prima facie case. That is when cognizance was deemed taken, which was after the BNSS came into force. So the accused had to be heard first under the proviso to Section 223 BNSS.
The Court set aside the 3 June 2026 order to the extent it found a prima facie case and took cognizance. It confined the order to a summons simplicitor. The accused must appear before the trial court within one month. On that date, or another if the complainant or counsel is absent, the court must hear the matter and pass orders. The Court said it had not gone into the merits.
Why it matters for aspirants
Remember the test: cognizance is taken when judicial mind is applied to the material. Earlier steps, such as ordering evidence, do not by themselves amount to cognizance. A likely question is: "Is hearing the accused necessary before cognizance on a complaint after 1 July 2024?" The answer is yes, under the proviso to Section 223 BNSS.
Explore online judiciary courses designed to strengthen legal concepts, provide exam-oriented study materials, and help aspirants prepare for Civil Judge, ADPO, and APO exams with expert guidance.
FAQs
What is the name of the case?
Umar and Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1002.
Who decided it?
Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran.
When did the BNSS come into force?
On 1 July 2024.
What provision requires the accused to be heard before cognizance?
The proviso to Section 223 BNSS.
When was cognizance taken in this case?
On 3 June 2026, when the Special Judge found a prima facie case.
Did the earlier order for evidence amount to cognizance?
No. The Court held cognizance was not taken at that stage.
Which cases did the Court discuss?
CREF Finance Ltd v. Shree Shanthi Homes (P) Ltd, Zunaid v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement.
What relief did the Court give?
It confined the order to a summons simplicitor and directed the accused to appear within one month so that the trial court could hear the matter.
Conclusion
Umar and Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh turns on one idea: the date of judicial application of mind decides the date of cognizance. That is a short, exam-friendly rule.
At Aashayein Judiciary, Nitesh Sir and the team track new rulings like this and convert them into Judiciary Notes and Mock Test questions. Join our Online Judiciary Coaching for the Civil Judge Exam, PCS J Exam and APO Exam, and keep your PYQ and current case law revision on track.