Allahabad High Court
FAIJAN AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
A charge‑sheet filed for non‑cognizable offences under the BNSS is deemed a complaint, rendering the cognizance/summoning order invalid.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the charge‑sheet dated 03‑07‑2025 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 23‑09‑2025 in Criminal Case No. 6862 of 2025. They contended that the offences alleged – Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of the BNSS – are non‑cognizable and, under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS, a police‑prepared charge‑sheet in such a case must be treated as a complaint, not as a police case. The State did not dispute this submission. The Court held that the charge‑sheet indeed falls within the definition of a complaint and that the learned magistrate erred in taking cognizance as a State case. Consequently, the cognizance/summoning order was set aside, and the application was partly allowed, with a clarification that the trial court may continue the proceedings treating the matter as a complaint.
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 for a non‑cognizable offence is deemed a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS.
- Whether the cognizance/summoning order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is vitiated on this ground.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 115(2), 2(1)h, 351(2), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 528
Subjects
- non‑cognizable offence
- charge‑sheet
- complaint
- cognizance
- Section 528 CrPC
- quash
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16174 of 2026
Faijan And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashish Kumar Pandey, Nandini Mishra
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
charge-sheet dated 03.07.2025 along with cognizance/summoning order
dated 23.09.2025 passed by learned ACJM, Court No.6, Ghaziabad as well
as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.6862 of 2025 (State vs. Faijan
and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.255 of 2025, under Sections
115(2), 352, 351(2) BNS, P.S. Ghaziabad Kotwali, District- Ghaziabad.
3. Learned counsel for applicants has made only one submission before the
Court that offences under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) 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 applicants 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 applicants.
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. 16174 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(2) 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 applicants
and as such process to issue notice to opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed
with.
8. In view thereof, cognizance/summoning order dated 23.09.2025 passed by
learned ACJM, Court No.6, Ghaziabad against the applicants on the basis of
charge-sheet submitted by concerned Investigating Officer under
Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) 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…