Allahabad High Court
PRANEETA AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The charge‑sheet filed under Sections 115(2), 351(3) and 352 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, Praneeta and three others, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash a charge‑sheet dated 24‑07‑2025 and the cognizance order dated 06‑01‑2026 in State vs Praneeta et al. (Case No. 84 of 2026). They contended that the offences alleged – Sections 115(2), 351(3) and 352 of the BNSS – are non‑cognizable and, 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 Shakila Bano v. State of U.P. (2008 (61) ACC 636), 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 lower court may still proceed treating the matter as a complaint if required.
Issues considered
- Whether offences under Sections 115(2), 351(3) and 352 of the BNSS are non‑cognizable.
- Whether a charge‑sheet filed by a police officer in respect 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 matter as a State case.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 115(2), 2(1)(h), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- non‑cognizable offence
- charge‑sheet
- complaint
- cognizance
- Section 528
- BNSS
- quash
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15222 of 2026
Praneeta And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shailesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for the State.
2. The present application has been preferred for seeking quashing of
chargesheet dated 24.07.2025 and cognizance order dated 06.01.2026 along
with entire proceedings of Case No.84 of 2026 (State Vs. Praneeta and
others), arising out of Case Crime No.270 of 2025, under Section 115(2),
351(3), 352 of BNS, P.S. Line Bazar, District Jaunpur, pending in the court
of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.11, Jaunpur.
3. Learned counsel for applicants has made only one submission before the
Court that offences under Section 115(2), 351(3), 352 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. 15222 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), 351(3), 352
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 6.1.2026 passed in Case No.84 of 2026 (State
Vs. Praneeta and others), arising out of Case Crime No.270 of 2025,
summoning the applicants on the basis of chargesheet submitted by
concerned Investigating Officer under Section 115(2), 351(3), 352 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 7, 2026
Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…