Section 206 of BNSS, 2023 — High Court to Decide, in Case of Doubt, District Where Inquiry or Trial Shall Take Place

Introduction

Section 206 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides a mechanism for resolving a conflict of territorial jurisdiction where two or more Courts have taken cognizance of the same offence.

The provision identifies which High Court will decide which of the competing Courts should conduct the inquiry or trial. Once that decision is made, the other proceedings relating to the same offence are discontinued.

Statutory Basis

Section 206 of BNSS provides that where two or more Courts have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question arises as to which Court should inquire into or try the offence, the question shall be decided:

• by the common High Court where the competing Courts are subordinate to the same High Court; or
• by the High Court within whose local limits the appellate criminal jurisdiction covers the place where the proceedings were first commenced, where the Courts are subordinate to different High Courts.

Once the question is decided, all other proceedings concerning that offence are discontinued.

Meaning of Section 206

Section 206 applies when more than one Court has taken cognizance of the same offence and there is uncertainty about which Court should proceed with the case.

Instead of allowing parallel criminal proceedings concerning the same offence to continue, Section 206 places the question before the appropriate High Court.

The High Court then determines which Court should conduct the inquiry or trial.

Object and Purpose

The principal objectives of Section 206 are:

• to resolve conflicts between criminal Courts having competing claims over the same offence;
• to prevent simultaneous proceedings for the same offence;
• to avoid duplication of judicial proceedings;
• to ensure that only the appropriate Court proceeds with the matter;
• to provide a clear mechanism for determining territorial jurisdiction.

The provision therefore promotes consistency and prevents conflicting proceedings concerning the same offence.

Essential Elements

1. Two or More Courts Must Have Taken Cognizance

Section 206 applies only when two or more Courts have taken cognizance of the same offence.

Mere filing of complaints or institution of proceedings before different Courts is not, by itself, the situation contemplated by the provision.

The statutory trigger is the taking of cognizance by the competing Courts.

2. The Same Offence Must Be Involved

The competing proceedings must concern the same offence.

Section 206 is therefore concerned with a conflict between Courts over which Court should inquire into or try the same offence.

3. A Question Must Arise as to Which Court Should Proceed

There must be a genuine question concerning which of the Courts ought to inquire into or try the offence.

Where no such conflict exists, Section 206 has no occasion to operate.

4. The Appropriate High Court Decides the Question

The relevant High Court determines which Court should proceed, depending upon whether the competing Courts are subordinate to the same High Court or to different High Courts.

Where the Courts Are Subordinate to the Same High Court

Under Section 206(a), where the competing Courts are subordinate to the same High Court, that High Court decides which Court should inquire into or try the offence.

For example, if two Magistrates located in different districts are both subordinate to the same High Court and both have taken cognizance of the same offence, the common High Court decides which Court should proceed.

Where the Courts Are Subordinate to Different High Courts

Section 206(b) applies where the competing Courts are not subordinate to the same High Court.

In such a situation, the question is decided by the High Court within whose local limits the appellate criminal jurisdiction covers the place where the proceedings were first commenced.

The provision therefore uses the commencement of proceedings as the connecting factor for determining which High Court will resolve the jurisdictional conflict.

Discontinuance of Other Proceedings

Once the appropriate High Court determines which Court should inquire into or try the offence, all other proceedings in respect of that offence shall be discontinued.

This is an important consequence of Section 206.

The provision is designed to prevent parallel proceedings concerning the same offence from continuing before multiple Courts.

Procedure

The operation of Section 206 can be understood in the following steps:

1. Two or more Courts take cognizance of the same offence.
2. A question arises as to which Court should conduct the inquiry or trial.
3. Determine whether the competing Courts are subordinate to the same High Court.
4. If they are subordinate to the same High Court, that High Court decides the issue.
5. If they are subordinate to different High Courts, identify the High Court within whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced.
6. That High Court decides which Court should proceed.
7. All other proceedings relating to that offence are discontinued.

Example

Suppose Courts in two different districts have both taken cognizance of the same offence.

If both Courts are subordinate to the same High Court, that High Court will determine which Court should conduct the inquiry or trial.

If the two Courts are subordinate to different High Courts, the High Court having appellate criminal jurisdiction over the place where the proceedings were first commenced will decide the issue.

After the decision, proceedings before the other Court are discontinued.

Important Distinctions

Taking Cognizance and Filing of a Case

Section 206 is triggered when two or more Courts have taken cognizance of the same offence.

The mere existence of complaints or police reports before different Courts does not by itself satisfy the wording of Section 206.

Section 206 and Territorial Jurisdiction

The ordinary territorial jurisdiction provisions determine where an offence may ordinarily be inquired into or tried.

Section 206 operates at a later stage where more than one Court has already taken cognizance of the same offence and a conflict arises regarding which Court should proceed.

Section 206 and Transfer of Cases

Section 206 is concerned with resolving a jurisdictional conflict between Courts that have taken cognizance of the same offence.

It should be distinguished from provisions dealing with the transfer of criminal cases, where a competent authority or Court transfers an existing proceeding from one Court to another.

Section 206 and Section 205

Section 205 empowers the State Government to direct that specified cases or classes of cases be tried in another Sessions division, subject to the statutory conditions.

Section 206, on the other hand, provides a mechanism for the High Court to resolve a conflict where two or more Courts have taken cognizance of the same offence.

BNSS and CrPC

Section 206 of BNSS broadly corresponds to Section 186 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The core principle has been retained.

Under both provisions, where two or more Courts have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question arises as to which Court should conduct the inquiry or trial:

• the common High Court decides the matter where the Courts are subordinate to the same High Court;
• where they are subordinate to different High Courts, the High Court having the relevant appellate criminal jurisdiction over the place where proceedings were first commenced decides the issue;
• proceedings before the other Courts are discontinued after the decision.

Thus, Section 206 substantially continues the earlier CrPC framework.

Relationship with BNS and BSA

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) defines the substantive criminal offences.

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) provides the procedural framework, including rules relating to territorial jurisdiction and criminal proceedings.

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) governs the evidentiary aspects of the proceedings.

Section 206 is specifically concerned with resolving a procedural and jurisdictional conflict between criminal Courts.

Important BNSS Provisions

• Section 197: Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.
• Section 198: Place of inquiry or trial.
• Section 199: Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues.
• Section 200: Place of trial where act is an offence by reason of relation to other offence.
• Section 201: Place of trial in case of certain offences.
• Section 202: Offences committed by means of electronic communications, letters, etc.
• Section 203: Offence committed on journey or voyage.
• Section 204: Place of trial for offences triable together.
• Section 205: Power to order cases to be tried in different Sessions divisions.
• Section 206: High Court to decide, in case of doubt, district where inquiry or trial shall take place.
• Section 207: Power to issue summons or warrant for offence committed beyond local jurisdiction.

Common Confusions

Does Section 206 apply whenever two Courts have jurisdiction over the same offence?

No.

The specific situation contemplated by Section 206 is where two or more Courts have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question arises as to which Court should inquire into or try it.

Which High Court decides when both Courts are subordinate to the same High Court?

That common High Court decides which Court should proceed.

What happens when the Courts are subordinate to different High Courts?

The High Court within whose local limits the appellate criminal jurisdiction covers the place where the proceedings were first commenced decides the issue.

What happens to the other proceedings after the High Court’s decision?

All other proceedings concerning that offence are discontinued.

Does Section 206 itself decide the guilt or innocence of the accused?

No.

Section 206 only determines which Court should proceed with the inquiry or trial. The merits of the criminal case are decided by the Court that ultimately conducts the proceedings.

Quick Revision

• Section 206 BNSS deals with a conflict concerning the Court that should conduct an inquiry or trial.
• It applies when two or more Courts have taken cognizance of the same offence.
• If the Courts are subordinate to the same High Court, that High Court decides the issue.
• If the Courts are subordinate to different High Courts, the High Court having appellate criminal jurisdiction over the place where proceedings were first commenced decides the issue.
• After the decision, all other proceedings relating to that offence are discontinued.
• The provision prevents parallel proceedings concerning the same offence.
• Section 206 broadly corresponds to Section 186 CrPC, 1973.
• It should be distinguished from ordinary territorial jurisdiction and judicial transfer of cases.

ALSO READ: Section 205 – Power to order cases to be tried in different sessions divisions

Conclusion

Section 206 of the BNSS provides a clear mechanism for resolving competing claims of criminal Courts where more than one Court has taken cognizance of the same offence. By assigning the decision to the appropriate High Court and requiring discontinuance of the other proceedings, the provision prevents parallel trials and ensures that the offence proceeds before a single competent Court.