Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

ROSHAN LAL AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

A charge sheet filed by a police officer in respect of a non‑cognizable offence under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of the BNSS is deemed a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) and therefore the magistrate’s cognizance order is invalid.

Summary

The applicants Roshan Lal and others filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash a charge‑sheet dated 08‑10‑2025 and the cognizance order dated 28‑11‑2025 in Criminal Case No. 3534 of 2025. They contended that the offences alleged under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of the BNSS are non‑cognizable and, per the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS, a police report in such a case must be treated as a complaint, not as a police case. The court accepted this legal submission, held that the investigating officer’s charge‑sheet should have been dealt with as a complaint, and found that the learned magistrate erred in taking cognizance as a State case. Consequently, the order of cognizance was set aside and the application was partly allowed. The court clarified that the lower court may still proceed with the matter as a complaint if required by law.

Issues considered

  • Whether offences under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of the BNSS 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 magistrate’s cognizance order based on such a charge‑sheet is valid.

Legislation cited

  • BNSS — s. 115(2), 2(1)(h), 351(2), 352

Subjects

  • non‑cognizable offence
  • charge sheet
  • complaint
  • cognizance
  • criminal procedure
  • Section 528 application
  • quashing of charge sheet

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15380 of 2026

Roshan Lal And 2 Others
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)         : Phool Singh Patel, Satya Prakash Singh
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 08.10.2025 and cognizance order dated 28.11.2025 along
with entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.3534 of 2025 (State Vs.
Roshan Lal and others), arising out of Case Crime No.210 of 2025, under
Section 115(2), 352, 351(2) of BNS, P.S. Khakhreru, District Fatehspur,
pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Khaga, Fatehpur.

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. 15380 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 28.11.2025 passed in Criminal Case No.3534
                                    of 2025 (State Vs. Roshan Lal and others), arising out of Case Crime No.210
                                    of 2025, 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 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.