Allahabad High Court
ASIF @ GUDDU BABUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The charge‑sheet is to be treated as a complaint, and the cognizance/summoning order is set aside.
Summary
The applicant filed an application under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash a charge‑sheet dated 05‑04‑2025 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 09‑07‑2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Case No.98612 of 2025. The charge‑sheet alleged offences under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(3) of the BNS, which the applicant contended are non‑cognizable offences. Relying on the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the BNS and the decision in Shakila Bano v. State of U.P., the applicant argued that a police report in a non‑cognizable case must be treated as a complaint and the magistrate erred in taking cognizance as a State case. The Court accepted this submission, held that the charge‑sheet should be deemed a complaint, and set aside the cognizance/summoning order. The application was partly allowed, with a direction that the matter may be proceeded with as a complaint case if required.
Issues considered
- Whether offences under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(3) of the BNS are non‑cognizable.
- Whether a police report (charge‑sheet) in respect of a non‑cognizable offence is deemed a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the BNS.
- Whether the Judicial Magistrate could take cognizance of the case as a State case.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Sanhita (BNS) — s. 115(2), 2(1)(h), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- non‑cognizable offence
- charge‑sheet
- complaint
- Section 528 CrPC
- quash
- cognizance
- magistrate
- BNS
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16122 of 2026
Asif @ Guddu Babu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ramesh Chandra Agrahari
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 05.04.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated
09.07.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, Kanpur
Nagar along with entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.98612 of 2025,
arising out of Case Crime No.22 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3)
BNS, P.S. Anwarganj, District- Kanpur Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for applicant has made only one submission before the
Court that offences under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) 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. Before proceeding further, the relevant provisions of Section 2(1)h BNSS
are being reproduced for ready reference as under:-
"2. Definitions.- (1) In this Sanhita, unless the context otherwise requires,-
NA528 No. 16122 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."
6. In view of the above explanation, charge sheet submitted by the concerned
Investigating Officer in the present case under Sections 115(2), 352,
351(3) 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.
7. Since the legal issue has been raised by learned counsel for the applicant
and as such process to issue notice to opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed
with.
8. In view thereof, cognizance/summoning order dated 09.07.2025 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, Kanpur Nagar against the applicants
on the basis of charge-sheet submitted by concerned Investigating Officer
under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) 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 6, 2026
Saif
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…