Allahabad High Court
SMT VIDYA DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The charge‑sheet filed by the investigating officer must be treated as a complaint, and the cognizance order treating it as a State case is erroneous and is set aside.
Summary
The applicant, Vidya Devi, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the charge‑sheet dated 28‑04‑2025 and the cognizance order dated 01‑01‑2026 in Criminal Case No. 2901 of 2026. She contended that the offences alleged – Section 352 and Section 351(2) of the BNS – are non‑cognizable and that, under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS, a police report of a non‑cognizable offence is deemed a complaint, not a police case. Relying on the decision in Shakila Bano v. State of U.P., the applicant argued that the magistrate erred in taking cognizance as a State case. The learned AGA did not dispute this legal submission. 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 trial court may continue the proceeding as a complaint case if required.
Issues considered
- Whether offences under Section 352 and Section 351(2) of the BNS are non‑cognizable.
- Whether a police report (charge‑sheet) in a case of a non‑cognizable offence is to be treated as a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS.
- Whether the magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the case as a State case.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 2(1)(h), 351(2), 352, 528
Subjects
- non‑cognizable offence
- charge‑sheet
- complaint
- cognizance
- Section 528
- criminal procedure
- BNSS
- quashing of charge‑sheet
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15131 of 2026
Smt Vidya Devi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi, Saurabh
Dwivedi
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
chargesheet dated 28.04.2025 and cognizance order dated 01.01.2026 along
with entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2901 of 2026 (State Vs. Vidya
Devi), arising out of Case Crime No.150 of 2025, under Section 352, 351(2)
of BNS, P.S. Jagdishpura, District Agra, pending in the court of learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Agra.
3. Learned counsel for applicant has made only one submission before the
Court that offences under Section 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 applicant 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
applicant, 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 applicant.
6. Before proceeding further, the relevant provisions of Section 2(1)(h) of
BNSS are being reproduced for ready reference as under:-
NA528 No. 15131 of 2026
2
"2. Definitions.-(1) 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 Section 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 01.01.2026 passed in Criminal Case No.2901
of 2026 (State Vs. Vidya Devi), arising out of Case Crime No.150 of 2025,
summoning the applicant on the basis of chargesheet submitted by
concerned Investigating Officer under Section 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…