Allahabad High Court

FAROOQ AHMADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

A police report of a non‑cognizable offence under the BNSS is deemed a complaint, so a charge‑sheet filed for such offences cannot be the basis for magistrate‑initiated cognizance and must be treated as a complaint case.

Summary

The applicant Farooq Ahmad filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the charge‑sheet dated 19‑April‑2025 and the cognizance order dated 12‑June‑2025 issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, in a case arising from alleged offences under Sections 115(2), 351(3) and 352 of the BNS. The applicant contended that these provisions describe non‑cognizable offences 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, and therefore the charge‑sheet cannot be the basis for magistrate‑initiated proceedings. The State did not dispute the legal submissions. The Court held that the charge‑sheet must be treated as a complaint and that the magistrate erred in taking cognizance as a State case. Consequently, the cognizance order was set aside and the application was partly allowed, with a clarification that the case may proceed as a complaint if required. The order was dated 5 May 2026.

Issues considered

Whether offences under Sections 115(2), 351(3) and 352 BNS are non‑cognizable.
Whether a police report of a non‑cognizable offence under the BNSS is deemed a complaint under Section 2(1)(h).
Whether the charge‑sheet and cognizance order can be quashed on the ground that the magistrate erred in treating the police report as a State case.

Legislation cited

BNS — s. 115(2), 351(3), 352
BNSS — s. 2(1)(h)

Subjects

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

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15982 of 2026

Farooq Ahmad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashutosh Upadhyay
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 charge
sheet dated 19.4.2025 and cognizance order dated 12.6.2025 passed by
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 11, Jaunpur as well as entire
proceeding of Case no. 2485 of 2025 (State vs. Farroq Ahmad) arising out of
Case Crime no. 87 of 2025 under sections 115(2), 351(3), 352 BNS, PS-
Kotwali, District Jaunpur.

3. Learned counsel for applicant has made only one submission before the
Court that offences under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352 BNS are non-
cognizable and in view of the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) 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 judgments passed in the case of Shakila Bano and others
Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2008 (61) ACC 636.

4. Although, learned AGA opposed the prayer sought through the instant
application but did not dispute the submissions so made by learned counsel
for applicant.

5. Since only legal arguments have been raised at the behest of applicants,
process to issue notice to opposite party no. 2 is hereby dispensed with.
NA528 No. 15982 of 2026
2

6. Before proceeding further, the relevant provisions of Section 2(1)(h)
BNSS are being reproduced for ready reference as under:-

"2. Definitions.-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 Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352
BNS shall be treated as complaint and it is to be decided as complaint and
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 12.6.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court no. 11, Jaunpur summoning the applicant on the basis of
chargesheet submitted by concerned Investigating Officer under Sections
115(2), 351(3), 352 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.

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
May 5, 2026
Shaswat

Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…