Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

RAJESH KUMAR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

The charge sheet filed under Sections 115(2), 351(2) and 352 BNSS is to be treated as a complaint, rendering the magistrate's cognizance order invalid.

Summary

The applicant, Rajesh Kumar Singh, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash a charge sheet dated 18‑08‑2025 and a cognizance order dated 13‑01‑2025 issued by the Additional Civil Judge/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau. He contended that the offences alleged—Sections 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of the BNSS—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 accepted the argument, held that the charge sheet should be deemed a complaint and that the magistrate erred in taking cognizance as a State case. Consequently, the order summoning the applicant on the basis of the charge sheet was set aside, and the application was partly allowed. The Court clarified that the trial court may still proceed with the matter as a complaint case if required by law.

Issues considered

  • Whether Sections 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of the BNSS constitute non‑cognizable offences.
  • Whether a charge sheet filed by a police officer for a non‑cognizable offence is to be treated as a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS.
  • Whether the cognizance order passed by the magistrate is liable to be set aside.

Legislation cited

Subjects

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

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17118 of 2026

Rajesh Kumar Singh
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                       :    Kamlesh Shrama
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 18.8.2025 and cognizance order dated 13.01.2025 passed by
learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Mau as well as entire proceeding of Case no. 375 of 2026 (State
vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh) arising out of Case Crime no. 89 of 2025 under
sections 115(2), 351(2), 352 BNS, PS- Chiraiyakot, District Mau.

3. Learned counsel for applicant has made only one submission before the
Court that offences under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 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. 17118 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(2), 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 13.01.2025 passed by learned Additional
                                    Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau
                                    summoning the applicant on the basis of chargesheet submitted by
                                    concerned Investigating Officer under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 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

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.