Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

DEVANAND GOSWAMIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

A police‑prepared charge sheet relating to a non‑cognizable offence is deemed a complaint under Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS, rendering the magistrate’s cognizance order invalid.

Summary

Devanand Goswami filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the charge sheet dated 7‑8‑2024 and the cognizance order dated 15‑9‑2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 3rd, Prayagraj in case 443 of 2025. The applicant contended that the offences alleged under Sections 352 and 351(3) BNS are non‑cognizable and, per the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS, the police‑prepared charge sheet must be treated as a complaint, not as a police case. The State did not dispute this legal submission. The High Court held that the explanation indeed makes a police report of a non‑cognizable offence a complaint, and therefore the magistrate erred in taking cognizance as a State case. Consequently, the order of 15‑9‑2025 was set aside and the application was partly allowed, with a direction that the case may proceed as a complaint if required. The judgment relied on the precedent of Shakila Bano v. State of U.P.

Issues considered

  • Whether offences under Sections 352 and 351(3) BNS are non‑cognizable.
  • Whether a charge sheet filed by a police officer in respect of a non‑cognizable offence is deemed a complaint under Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS.
  • Whether the Judicial Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the charge sheet as a State case.

Legislation cited

  • BNS — s. 351(3), 352
  • BNSS — s. 2(1)(h), 528

Subjects

  • quash
  • charge sheet
  • non‑cognizable offence
  • complaint
  • cognizance
  • Section 528
  • BNSS
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14225 of 2026

Devanand Goswami
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Amit Kumar Singh, Farheen, Santosh
                                Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 77
                  HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present application has been preferred for seeking quashing of charge
sheet dated 7.8.2024 and cognizance order dated 15.9.2025 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd, Prayagraj as well as entire proceeding of
Case no. 443 of 2025 (State vs. Devananad Goswami) arising out of Case
Crime no. 0279 of 2024 under sections 352, 351(3) BNS, PS- Ghoorpur,
District Prayagraj.

3. Learned counsel for applicant has made only one submission before the
Court that offences under Sections 352, 351(3) BNS are non-cognizable and
in view of the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) BNSS, the charge sheet filed by
the Investigating Officer concerned cannot proceed as a police case and the
same is liable to be proceeded with as a complaint case. In support of his
submission, learned counsel of applicant has placed reliance upon the
judgments passed in the case of Shakila Bano and others Vs. State of U.P.
and another, 2008 (61) ACC 636.

4. Although, learned AGA opposed the prayer sought through the instant
application but did not dispute the submissions so made by learned counsel
for applicant.

5. Since only legal arguments have been raised at the behest of applicants,
process to issue notice to opposite party no. 2 is hereby dispensed with.
                                                                                                       NA528 No. 14225 of 2026
                                                                             2


                                    6. Before proceeding further, the relevant provisions of Section 2(1)(h)
                                    BNSS are being reproduced for ready reference as under:-

                                              "2. Definitions.-In this Sanhita, unless the context otherwise requires,-

                                              (h) "complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a
                                              Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Sanhita, that some
                                              person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does
                                              not include a police report.

                                              Explanation.- A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses,
                                              after investigation, the commission of a non- cognizable offence shall be
                                              deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is
                                              made shall be deemed to be the complainant."

                                    7. In view of the above explanation, charge sheet submitted by the concerned
                                    Investigating Officer in the present case under Sections 352, 351(3) BNS
                                    shall be treated as complaint and it is to be decided as complaint and the
                                    learned Magistrate fell in legal error by taking cognizance as State case and
                                    the orders passed by him is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

                                    8. In view thereof, order dated 15.9.2025 passed by learned Judicial
                                    Magistrate, 3rd, Prayagraj summoning the applicant on the basis of
                                    chargesheet submitted by concerned Investigating Officer under Sections
                                    352, 351(3) BNS treating the same as State case, is set aside.

                                    9. Accordingly, the instant application is partly allowed.

                                    10. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the learned
                                    court concerned to proceed with the case treating it as complaint case, if
                                    required, in accordance with law.



                                                                                                   (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
                                    May 7, 2026
                                    Shaswat




Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.