Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

MURARI LAL AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

The charge sheet filed under the cited sections must be treated as a complaint, and the cognizance order treating it as a State case is erroneous and set aside.

Summary

The applicants Murari Lal and another filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash a charge sheet dated 08.01.2025 and a cognizance order dated 01.05.2025 in Crime No. 320 of 2024. They contended that the offences alleged under Sections 115(2), 61(2), 351(2) and 351(3) of the BNS are non‑cognizable and, per 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 State case. Relying on Shakila Bano v. State of U.P. (2008), the court held that the charge sheet should indeed be dealt with as a complaint. Consequently, the High Court set aside the magistrate’s order of cognizance and partially allowed the application, while noting that the lower court may still proceed with the matter as a complaint if required. The order was signed on 7 May 2026.

Issues considered

  • Whether the offences under Sections 115(2), 61(2), 351(2) and 351(3) of the 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 the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS.
  • Whether the cognizance order treating the charge sheet as a State case is legally valid.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • non‑cognizable offence
  • charge sheet
  • complaint
  • Section 2(1)(h) explanation
  • cognizance
  • quashing of charge sheet
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15266 of 2026

Murari Lal And Another
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                    :   Ram Krishna Dubey
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 08.01.2025 and cognizance order dated 01.05.2025 passed
in the case arising out of Case Crime No.320 of 2024, under Section 115(2),
61(2), 351(2), 351(3) of BNS, P.S. Jait, District Mathura, pending in the
court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura.

3. Learned counsel for applicants has made only one submission before the
Court that offences under Section 115(2), 61(2), 351(2), 351(3) 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
     requires,-
                                                                                            NA528 No. 15266 of 2026
                                                                    2

                                         (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), 61(2), 351(2),
                                    351(3) 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 01.05.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial
                                    Magistrate, Meerut in Case Crime No.320 of 2024, summoning the
                                    applicants on the basis of chargesheet submitted by concerned Investigating
                                    Officer under Section 115(2), 61(2), 351(2), 351(3) 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


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.