Magistrate Can Take Cognizance Under BNSS Even After Court Hours If Proceedings Begin Before Court Rises: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court refused to quash proceedings initiated against a group of advocates accused of disrupting court proceedings before a Judicial Magistrate in Madurai. The Court held that under Section 384 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), what matters is whether cognizance was taken before the “rising of the court,” not whether it happened within regular office timings.

Justice L. Victoria Gowri observed that courts frequently function beyond normal working hours, especially in urgent criminal matters, remand proceedings, and part-heard cases. Therefore, judicial proceedings cannot be restricted by strict clock-based office timings. Since the Magistrate had allegedly initiated action before the court rose for the day, the statutory requirement was considered satisfied.

The case arose after a confrontation inside the Judicial Magistrate Court No. V, Madurai, where several advocates were accused of entering the courtroom, shouting at the Magistrate, and interfering with judicial proceedings over the listing of a petition. According to the Magistrate, the situation escalated to the point where she had to briefly withdraw to her chambers before initiating proceedings against the advocates under Section 384 BNSS and Section 267 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The advocates approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings, arguing that the Magistrate had failed to follow the mandatory procedure and that the action was driven by personal bias. However, the High Court declined to interfere at the preliminary stage, noting that inherent powers to quash proceedings must be used sparingly, especially in matters involving alleged contemptuous conduct inside a courtroom.

The Court also rejected the argument that the entire process under Section 384 BNSS had to be completed on the same day as the incident. It clarified that the law only requires cognizance to be taken before the court rises, while the opportunity to show cause can continue thereafter depending on the circumstances of the case.

Importantly, the High Court emphasized that members of the legal profession are not immune from consequences if their conduct disrupts judicial functioning or undermines the authority of the court. Stressing the importance of discipline between the Bar and the Bench, the Court observed that attempts to intimidate or pressure judicial officers strike at the foundation of the rule of law.

The judgment also contained strong praise for the Judicial Magistrate involved in the case. The Court described her conduct as fearless, principled, and consistent with the highest traditions of the judiciary. It noted that despite pressure from senior members of the Bar, the Magistrate chose to uphold the dignity and authority of the institution rather than take the easier path of silence or compromise.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petitions and directed the advocates to submit their explanations before the Magistrate, who would continue the inquiry in accordance with law and principles of natural justice.