Allahabad High Court
BRAJMOHAN AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The charge‑sheet filed by the investigating officer is to be treated as a complaint, rendering the cognizance order invalid.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the charge‑sheet dated 29‑12‑2025 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 09‑04‑2026 in Criminal Case No.511 of 2026. They contended that the offences alleged under Sections 324(4) and 352 of the BNSS are non‑cognizable and, per 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 examined the definition of "complaint" and the explanatory clause, concluding that the charge‑sheet indeed falls within the meaning of a complaint. Consequently, the cognizance order taken as a State case was set aside. The application was partly allowed, with a direction that the matter may proceed as a complaint case if required.
Issues considered
- Whether offences under Sections 324(4) and 352 BNSS are non‑cognizable.
- 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) BNSS.
- Whether the cognizance/summoning order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is liable to be set aside.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Sanhita (BNSS) — s. 2(1)h, 324(4), 352
Subjects
- quash
- charge sheet
- non‑cognizable offence
- complaint
- Section 528
- cognizance
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33078 of 2026
Brajmohan And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Ayub
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 79
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 29.12.2025 along with cognizance/summoning order
dated 09.04.2026 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.511 of
2026, (State vs. Brajmohan and others) arising out of Case Crime No.0546
of 2025, under Sections 324(4), 352 BNS, P.S. Sadabad Kotwali, District
Hathras, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Sadabad, Hathras.
3. Learned counsel for applicants has made only one submission before the
Court that offences under Sections 324(4), 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 applicants has placed reliance upon the
judgments passed in the case of Murli and others Vs. State of U.P. and
another, 2008 (61) ACC 54; Virendra Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.
and others, 2002 (45) ACC 609 and 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. 33078 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 324(4), 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.
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 09.04.2026 passed by
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadabad, Hathras against the
applicants on the basis of charge-sheet submitted by concerned Investigating
Officer under Sections 324(4), 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.
September 8, 2026
Ashish/-
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…