Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

VIVEK NISHAD AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

The charge‑sheet filed for the non‑cognizable offences must be treated as a complaint, and the magistrate's cognizance order is set aside.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash a charge‑sheet dated 24‑06‑2025 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 01‑04‑2026 in Criminal Case No.5256 of 2026. They contended that the offences alleged—Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(3) of the BNSS—are non‑cognizable and, per the explanation to Section 2(1)h BNSS, a police report in such matters must be treated as a complaint, not a police case. The State did not dispute this submission. Relying on the decision in Shakila Bano v. State of U.P., the court held that the charge‑sheet should indeed be treated as a complaint and that the 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 direction that the case may proceed as a complaint if required.

Issues considered

  • Whether offences under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(3) BNSS are non‑cognizable.
  • Whether a police‑prepared charge‑sheet for a non‑cognizable offence is deemed a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(1)h BNSS.
  • Whether the magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the matter as a State case.

Legislation cited

  • B.N.S.S. — s. 115(2), 2(1)h, 351(3), 352, 528

Subjects

  • non‑cognizable offence
  • complaint vs police report
  • quashing charge‑sheet
  • Section 528 application
  • cognizance error
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

            APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33178 of 2026

Vivek Nishad And 3 Others
                                                                .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                   .....Opposite
                                                                         Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                     :   Akash Kumar Nishad
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 24.06.2025 along with cognizance/summoning order
dated 01.04.2026 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.5256 of 2026
(State vs. Vivek Nishad and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.124 of
2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, P.S. Surauli, District-
Deoria, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Court No.19, Deoria.

3. Learned counsel for applicants has made only one submission before the
Court that offences under Sections 115(2), 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 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. 33178 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(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.

                                    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 01.04.2026 passed by
                                    learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.19, Deoria against
                                    the applicants on the basis of charge-sheet submitted by concerned
                                    Investigating Officer under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS treating the
                                    same as State case, is set aside, in respect of applicant(s) herein.

                                    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
                                    Saif
                                                                                        (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
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.