His senior’s instruction had sounded simple: “The matter has been settled. Go and withdraw the complaint.”

But when the case was called, the young advocate suddenly realised that “withdraw” was only an instruction not necessarily the correct legal remedy. Should he file an application for withdrawal of the complaint, or should he seek permission to compound the offence?

“Under what provision?” the Magistrate asked.

The question cut through the noise of the courtroom. The Magistrate had already dealt with nearly fifty matters and seemed fully prepared to give him another date. Standing there with an uncertain application and an even more uncertain answer, the young advocate felt like a sheep next in line outside a butcher’s shop.

The confusion arose from one seemingly simple fact: the accused had been summoned. But did the issue of a summons make it a summons-case? As the young advocate was about to learn, the answer depends not on the process issued by the Court, but on the punishment prescribed for the offence.

Introduction

A Magistrate receives a private complaint. The complainant is examined. The Court conducts an inquiry and then issues a summons to the accused. The accused does not appear, so the Court later issues a bailable warrant and then a non-bailable warrant.

Is it now a summons case or a warrant case?

The answer does not depend on whether the Court issued a summons, a bailable warrant, or a non-bailable warrant. It depends primarily on the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence.

This distinction may appear technical, but it has serious practical consequences. It decides the procedure for trial, whether a formal charge must be framed, whether pre-charge evidence is required, whether the complainant can simply withdraw the complaint, and whether a settlement must instead be placed before the Court as compounding of the offence.

The basic statutory test

Section 2(z) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) defines a warrant-case as a case relating to an offence punishable with:

• death;
• imprisonment for life; or
• imprisonment for a term exceeding two years.

Section 2(x) defines a summons-case as a case relating to an offence that is not a warrant-case.

The practical rule is therefore simple:

Maximum punishment for the offence	Classification
Fine only	Summons-case
Imprisonment up to six months, one year, or two years	Summons-case
Imprisonment of exactly two years	Summons-case
Imprisonment exceeding two years	Warrant-case
Imprisonment for life or death	Warrant-case

The older Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) used the same test in Sections 2(w) and 2(x).

The Court must look at the maximum punishment provided by law, not the sentence that may eventually be imposed in the particular case.

This is the ordinary classification rule. A special statute may prescribe a particular mode of trial, and the BNSS itself permits procedural conversion or summary trial in specified situations. Those exceptions affect the manner of trial; they do not make the summons or warrant used for attendance the test of classification.

Three different concepts that should not be mixed

Much of the confusion disappears once three separate questions are asked.

1. How was the case instituted?

A criminal case before a Magistrate may be instituted:

• on a police report; or
• otherwise than on a police report, which includes a private complaint.

This distinction determines which procedural track will apply within a warrant-case.

2. Is it a summons-case or a warrant-case?

This is decided by the maximum punishment for the offence. It is not decided by the document through which the accused is called to Court.

3. How is the attendance of the accused being secured?

A summons, bailable warrant, and non-bailable warrant are processes used to secure appearance. They do not determine or change the legal classification of the case.

These three questions operate independently. A private complaint may be either a summons-case or a warrant-case. Similarly, a case instituted on a police report may also fall into either category.

The classifications of cognizable or non-cognizable and bailable or non-bailable are also separate. A “warrant-case” does not necessarily mean that the offence is non-bailable, and a “summons-case” does not by itself guarantee bail. Each question must be answered from the applicable statute and schedule.

Why a warrant-case may begin with a summons

Section 227(1) BNSS makes the position clear. If the matter is a summons-case, the Magistrate shall issue a summons. If it is a warrant-case, the Magistrate may issue a warrant or, if considered appropriate, issue a summons.

Therefore, the following sequence is legally possible in a warrant-case:

1. The Court initially issues a summons.
2. The accused fails to appear.
3. The Court issues a bailable warrant.
4. Continued non-appearance leads to a non-bailable warrant.

The case remains a warrant-case throughout. The process has escalated, but the classification has not changed.

The reverse point is equally important: a summons-case does not become a warrant-case merely because a bailable or non-bailable warrant is later issued to enforce attendance.

Difference in trial procedure under the BNSS

Summons-cases

Summons-cases before Magistrates are governed by Chapter XXI of the BNSS, particularly Sections 274 to 280.

When the accused appears, the substance of the accusation is stated under Section 274. A formal written charge is not ordinarily framed. If the accused does not plead guilty, the Court proceeds to take prosecution and defence evidence under Section 277 and then passes a judgment under Section 278.

The proviso to Section 274 is important. It permits the Magistrate to release the accused, with the effect of discharge, if the accusation is considered groundless and reasons are recorded. This is a notable feature of the BNSS. Older decisions interpreting Section 251 CrPC, which did not contain the same proviso, should therefore not be applied mechanically to a proceeding governed by the BNSS.

Warrant-cases instituted on a police report

These cases are governed principally by Sections 261 to 266 BNSS. The Court considers the police report and accompanying documents, decides the question of discharge, and, where sufficient grounds exist, frames a formal charge. Evidence follows after the charge.

Warrant-cases instituted otherwise than on a police report

A private complaint involving a warrant-case follows the ordinary trial sequence in Sections 267 to 271 BNSS. Sections 272 and 273 contain further provisions concerning absence of the complainant and compensation for an accusation made without reasonable cause.

The broad stages are:

1. prosecution evidence before charge under Section 267;
2. discharge under Section 268 if no case is made out, or if the charge is groundless;
3. framing of a formal written charge under Section 269 if grounds exist;
4. further prosecution evidence and recall of witnesses, where applicable;
5. defence evidence under Section 270; and
6. acquittal or conviction under Section 271.

This pre-charge stage is one of the most significant differences between a summons complaint case and a warrant complaint case.

Important procedural exceptions

The ordinary classification does not mean that procedure can never change. Under Section 282 BNSS, a Magistrate may, in the interests of justice, convert a summons-case concerning an offence punishable with more than six months’ imprisonment into the warrant-case procedure and may recall witnesses already examined.

The BNSS also permits summary trial of specified offences and, after hearing the accused and recording reasons, of certain other offences within the limits of Section 283. Special statutes may contain their own procedural rules. For example, Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides for summary trial of offences under that Chapter.

The correct approach is therefore to identify the basic classification first and then check whether a conversion provision, summary-trial provision, or special statute modifies the ordinary trial procedure.

A practical comparison

Point	Summons complaint case	Warrant complaint case
Governing BNSS provisions	Sections 274–280	Sections 267–273
Formal charge	Ordinarily not required	Required if the accused is not discharged
Prosecution evidence	One main trial stage	Pre-charge evidence followed by post-charge procedure
General discharge provision	Section 274 proviso under BNSS	Section 268
Withdrawal by complainant	Section 280 expressly applies	No corresponding general right under Section 280
Absence of complainant	Section 279; may lead to acquittal after the statutory opportunity	Section 272; may lead to discharge before charge in the circumstances stated there
Settlement of a compoundable offence	Compounding may be used where applicable	Compounding is ordinarily the proper route

Withdrawal of a summons complaint under Section 280 BNSS

Section 280 appears in the Chapter dealing with trials of summons-cases. It allows a complainant, at any time before the final order, to seek permission to withdraw the complaint. If the Magistrate is satisfied that sufficient grounds exist, withdrawal may be permitted and the accused is acquitted.

The words “in any case under this Chapter” are important. They confine Section 280 to summons-cases tried under that Chapter. It should not be treated as a general withdrawal provision for every private complaint.

The corresponding provision under the old CrPC was Section 257.

What happens when a warrant complaint is settled?

In a warrant complaint case, settlement does not automatically bring the proceeding to an end. The correct legal route depends on whether the offence is compoundable.

If the offence is compoundable

The parties should move an application under Section 359 BNSS. Some offences may be compounded without the permission of the Court, while others require the Court’s permission. Section 359(8) provides that lawful compounding has the effect of acquittal.

If the offence is not compoundable

The Magistrate cannot create a power of compounding that the statute does not provide. Depending on the nature of the offence and the settlement, the parties may have to approach the High Court under Section 528 BNSS for quashing of the criminal proceeding.

The High Court’s power is wider than statutory compounding, but it is discretionary. The Supreme Court has repeatedly distinguished private or predominantly civil disputes from serious offences having a wider social impact. Settlement is therefore relevant, but it is not an automatic ground for quashing every offence.

Withdrawal from prosecution is different

Section 360 BNSS concerns withdrawal from prosecution by the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor with the consent of the Court. It is not a substitute for withdrawal by a private complainant and should not be confused with Section 280.

Worked example: Section 406 IPC and Section 316(2) BNS

Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code prescribed imprisonment extending up to three years. Its corresponding general criminal-breach-of-trust provision, Section 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), prescribes imprisonment extending up to five years.

Both punishments exceed two years. A case for the general offence of criminal breach of trust is therefore a warrant-case, whether the applicable substantive provision is Section 406 IPC or Section 316(2) BNS.

Suppose the proceeding began as a private complaint. The complainant was examined under Section 223 BNSS, an inquiry was conducted under Section 225, and the accused was thereafter summoned. The accused failed to appear, leading first to a bailable warrant and then to a non-bailable warrant.

None of these steps converts the matter into a summons-case. It remains a warrant-case instituted otherwise than on a police report.

If the parties subsequently settle:

• an offence under Section 316(2) BNS may be compounded by the owner of the property with the permission of the Court under Section 359(2) BNSS;
• the composition results in acquittal under Section 359(8) BNSS; and
• the application should expressly request cancellation or recall of all outstanding warrants and consequential processes.

Where the old CrPC continues to govern the proceeding, Section 406 IPC is similarly listed as compoundable by the owner of the property with the permission of the Court under Section 320(2), and Section 320(8) gives the composition the effect of acquittal.

The application should therefore be framed as an application for permission to compound the offence, consequential acquittal, and cancellation of the outstanding process—not merely as an application to withdraw a summons complaint under Section 280 BNSS.

The importance of repeal and savings provisions

The BNS and BNSS came into force on 1 July 2024, but old section numbers cannot always be replaced mechanically with their new counterparts.

Section 358 BNS preserves liabilities, punishments, investigations, and proceedings relating to offences committed under the repealed IPC. Section 531 BNSS also preserves pending appeals, applications, trials, inquiries, and investigations under the CrPC in the manner stated in that provision.

Before drafting any application, the lawyer should therefore verify:

• the date of the alleged occurrence;
• the date on which the complaint or proceeding began;
• the exact penal provision mentioned in the summoning order; and
• whether the old Code or the BNSS governs the pending proceeding.

A seven-step courtroom checklist

Before describing a case as a summons-case or warrant-case, ask:

1. What is the exact offence and sub-section?
2. What is its maximum statutory punishment?
3. Does that punishment exceed two years?
4. Was the case instituted on a police report or on a private complaint?
5. Which procedural Chapter applies?
6. Is the proposed relief withdrawal, discharge, compounding, or quashing?
7. What should the final legal consequence be—discharge, acquittal, or termination by the High Court?

If warrants are outstanding, add an eighth question: has the application expressly sought their recall or cancellation?

Frequently asked questions

Can a summons be issued in a warrant-case?

Yes. Section 227(1)(b) BNSS expressly permits the Magistrate to issue either a warrant or a summons in a warrant-case.

Can a bailable warrant or non-bailable warrant be issued in a summons-case?

Yes, where the law permits such coercive process to secure attendance. The issue of a warrant does not by itself change the classification of the case.

Does every private complaint qualify for withdrawal under Section 280 BNSS?

No. Section 280 belongs to the Chapter governing summons-cases and applies to a case under that Chapter.

Does a settlement automatically end a criminal complaint?

No. The Court must pass an appropriate judicial order. Depending on the offence, this may be an order permitting withdrawal, allowing compounding, or quashing the proceeding.

Is compounding the same as quashing?

No. Compounding is governed by the statutory list and conditions in Section 359 BNSS. Quashing is an exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS and is guided by different principles.

Conclusion

The shortest way to remember the law is this:

A summons describes the process used to call an accused to Court. A summons-case describes the legal category of the trial. The two are not the same.

The classification of the case follows the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence. Once that classification is correctly identified, the provisions governing charge, evidence, discharge, withdrawal, compounding, and the final order become much easier to locate.

This is not merely a matter of terminology. Choosing the wrong provision may lead to an avoidable objection, an incorrect final order, or the failure to secure the legal consequence that the parties actually need.

---

Primary legal sources

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
• Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, Supreme Court of India (2017)

Disclaimer: This article is intended for general legal information. The applicable substantive and procedural provisions must be checked against the dates, allegations, and procedural history of the particular case.