Allahabad High Court
KALIYAN AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The charge‑sheet under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of the BNSS must be treated as a complaint, and the cognizance order treating it as a State case is set aside.
Summary
The applicants Kaliyan and two others filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash a charge‑sheet dated 16‑12‑2024 and the cognizance order dated 13‑10‑2025 in Criminal Case No. 1210 of 2025, which arose from Crime No. 513 of 2024 and alleged offences under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of the BNSS. They contended that these offences are non‑cognizable and, under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS, a police report of a non‑cognizable offence must be treated as a complaint, not as a police case. Relying on Shakila Bano v. State of U.P. (2008), they argued that the magistrate erred in taking cognizance as a State case. The State did not dispute these submissions. The High Court held that the charge‑sheet should indeed be treated as a complaint and set aside the cognizance order, partially allowing the application while noting that the case may still proceed as a complaint if required. The order therefore quashes the earlier cognizance but does not bar further complaint‑type proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether offences under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of the BNSS are cognizable.
- Whether a charge‑sheet filed by a police officer for a non‑cognizable offence is deemed a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS.
- Whether the cognizance order treating the charge‑sheet as a State case can be set aside.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic and Substance (BNSS) Act — s. 115(2), 2(1)(h), 351(2), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Subjects
- non‑cognizable offence
- charge‑sheet
- complaint
- cognizance
- criminal procedure
- Section 528
- BNSS
- quashing of charge‑sheet
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15121 of 2026
Kaliyan And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kamal Kaushal Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
2. The present application has been preferred for seeking quashing of
chargesheet dated 16.12.2024 and cognizance order dated 13.10.2025 along
with entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1210 of 2025 (State Vs.
Kaliyan and others), arising out of Case Crime No.513 of 2024, under
Section 115(2), 352, 351(2) of BNS, P.S. Atrauli, District Aligarh, pending
in the court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M., Atrauli, Aligarh.
3. Learned counsel for applicants has made only one submission before the
Court that offences under Section 115(2), 352, 351(2) of BNS are non-
cognizable and in view of the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of 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 applicants has placed
reliance upon the judgment passed in the case of Shakila Bano and others
Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2008 (61) ACC 636.
4. Since the argument as advanced on behalf of learned counsel for
applicants, is based on legal issue, no notice is required to be issued to
opposite party no.2.
5. Although, learned AGA opposed the prayer sought through the instant
application but did not dispute the submissions so made by learned counsel
for applicants.
6. Before proceeding further, the relevant provisions of Section 2(1)(h) of
BNSS are being reproduced for ready reference as under:-
"2. Definitions.-(1) In this Sanhita, unless the context otherwise
NA528 No. 15121 of 2026
2
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 Section 115(2), 352, 351(2)
of BNS, should have been treated as complaint and it is to be decided as
complaint but 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 13.10.2025 passed in Criminal Case No.1210
of 2025 (State Vs. Kaliyan and others), arising out of Case Crime No.513 of
2024 summoning the applicants on the basis of chargesheet submitted by
concerned Investigating Officer under Section 115(2), 352, 351(2) of 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.
May 6, 2026
Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…