Allahabad High Court
JAIS MOHAMMAD @ MAJANU AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The charge sheet filed under Sections 131, 351(3) and 352 BNS is to be treated as a complaint, and the magistrate's cognizance order is set aside.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash a charge sheet dated 01‑08‑2025 and a cognizance order dated 14‑11‑2025 issued by the Judicial Magistrate, Bansi, Siddharth Nagar. They contended that the offences alleged – Sections 131, 351(3) and 352 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 must be treated as a complaint, not as a police case. The State did not dispute these legal submissions. The Court held that the charge sheet indeed falls within the definition of a complaint and that the magistrate erred in taking cognizance as a State case. Consequently, the order of 14‑11‑2025 was set aside and the application was partly allowed, with a direction that the case may proceed as a complaint if required.
Issues considered
- Whether Sections 131, 351(3) and 352 BNS are non‑cognizable offences.
- Whether a police‑prepared charge sheet for a non‑cognizable offence is deemed a complaint under Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS.
- Whether the Judicial Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the matter as a State case.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 2(1)(h)
Subjects
- non‑cognizable offence
- charge sheet
- complaint
- cognizance
- Section 528
- BNSS
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16012 of 2026
Jais Mohammad @ Majanu And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gauri Shankar Yadav
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 01.08.2025 and cognizance order dated 14.11.2025 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate, Bansi, Siddharth Nagar as well as entire
proceeding of Case no. 7807 of 2025 (State vs. Firoz and others) arising out
of Case Crime no. 78 of 2025 under sections 131, 351(3), 352 BNS, PS-
Mishraulia, District Siddharth Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for applicant has made only one submission before the
Court that offences under Sections 131, 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. 16012 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 131, 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 14.11.2025 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate, Bansi, Siddharth Nagar summoning the applicant on the basis of
chargesheet submitted by concerned Investigating Officer under Sections
131, 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
Checking your session…