Allahabad High Court
VIPUL AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The charge sheet filed under Sections 352 and 351(3) BNSS must be treated as a complaint, and the magistrate’s cognizance order is set aside.
Summary
The applicants Vipul and another filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash a charge sheet dated 1‑12‑2024 and a cognizance order dated 22‑4‑2025 issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, in a case arising from offences under Sections 352 and 351(3) of the BNSS. They contended that these offences are non‑cognizable and, under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS, a police report of a non‑cognizable offence is deemed a complaint, so the charge sheet cannot be treated as a police case. The State did not dispute these legal submissions. The Court examined the definition and explanation in Section 2(1)(h) and held that the charge sheet must be treated as a complaint, rendering the magistrate’s taking of cognizance as a state case erroneous. Consequently, the order of 22‑4‑2025 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 offences under Sections 352 and 351(3) BNSS are non‑cognizable.
- Whether a charge sheet filed for a non‑cognizable offence is to be treated as a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) BNSS.
- Whether the magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the charge sheet as a State case.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 2(1)(h), 351(3), 352, 528
Subjects
- non‑cognizable offence
- charge sheet
- complaint
- cognizance
- Section 528 BNSS
- quashing
- magistrate error
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17136 of 2026
Vipul And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Satya Prakash Singh
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 1.12.2024 and cognizance order dated 22.4.2025 passed by
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 3, Ghaziabad as well
as entire proceeding of Case no. 3522 of 2025 (State vs. Vipul and another)
arising out of Case Crime no. 774 of 2024 under sections 352, 351(3) BNS,
PS- Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad.
3. Learned counsel for applicant has made only one submission before the
Court that offences under Sections 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. 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. 17136 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 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.
8. In view thereof, order dated 22.4.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 3, Ghaziabad summoning the applicants on
the basis of chargesheet submitted by concerned Investigating Officer under
Sections 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.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
May 5, 2026
Shaswat
Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…