Allahabad High Court
VIVEK SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The charge sheet under Sections 115(2), 351(1) and 352 BNSS must be treated as a complaint, and the magistrate's cognizance order is set aside.
Summary
Vivek Sharma filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the charge sheet dated 08‑04‑2025 and the cognizance order dated 01‑10‑2025 in State vs Vivek Sharma (Case No. 56118/2025). He contended that the offences alleged—Sections 115(2), 351(1) and 352 of the BNSS—are non‑cognizable and, 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. Relying on Shakila Bano v. State of U.P., the court held that the magistrate erred in taking cognizance as a State case. Consequently, the court set aside the cognizance order, partially allowing the application, while noting that the trial court may still proceed treating the matter as a complaint if required. The order was dated 5 May 2026.
Issues considered
- Whether offences under Sections 115(2), 351(1) and 352 of the BNSS are non‑cognizable.
- Whether a charge sheet filed by a police officer in respect of a non‑cognizable offence is deemed a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS.
- Whether the magistrate could take cognizance of the case as a State case.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 115(2), 2(1)(h), 351(1), 352
Subjects
- non‑cognizable offence
- charge sheet
- complaint
- cognizance
- Section 528
- BNSS
- quash
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18379 of 2026
Vivek Sharma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shashi Kant Pandey
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
chargesheet dated 08.04.2025 and cognizance order dated 01.10.2025 along
with entire proceedings of Case No.56118 of 2025 (State Vs. Vivek
Sharma), arising out of Case Crime No.157 of 2025, under Section 115(2),
351(1), 352 of BNS, P.S. Majhola, District Moradabad, pending in the court
of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad.
3. Learned counsel for applicant has made only one submission before the
Court that offences under Section 115(2), 351(1), 352 of BNS are non-
cognizable and in view of the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of 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 judgment passed in the case of Shakila Bano and others
Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2008 (61) ACC 636.
4. Since the argument as advanced on behalf of learned counsel for
applicant, is based on legal issue, no notice is required to be issued to
opposite party no.2.
5. Although, learned AGA opposed the prayer sought through the instant
application but did not dispute the submissions so made by learned counsel
for applicant.
6. Before proceeding further, the relevant provisions of Section 2(1)(h) of
BNSS are being reproduced for ready reference as under:-
"2. Definitions.-(1) In this Sanhita, unless the context otherwise
NA528 No. 18379 of 2026
2
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 Section 115(2), 351(1), 352
of BNS, should have been treated as complaint and it is to be decided as
complaint but 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 01.10.2025 passed in Case No.56118 of 2025
(State Vs. Vivek Sharma), arising out of Case Crime No.157 of 2025,
summoning the applicant on the basis of chargesheet submitted by
concerned Investigating Officer under Section 115(2), 351(1), 352 of 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 5, 2026
Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…