Allahabad High Court
IMRAN AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MADAN PAL SINGH
Holding
A police report revealing only a non‑cognizable offence is deemed a complaint under the Explanation to Section 2(d) CrPC, rendering the magistrate’s cognizance order as a State case void.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 seeking to quash a charge‑sheet and the cognizance order in a case involving offences under Sections 323 and 504 IPC. They argued that these offences are non‑cognizable and, per the Explanation to Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the police report should be treated as a complaint, not as a State case. The High Court agreed, finding that the magistrate had erred in taking cognizance of the report as a State case. Accordingly, the court allowed the application in part, directing that the police report be treated as a complaint and the cognizance order be set aside. The magistrate must now proceed afresh following the procedure applicable to complaint cases.
Issues considered
- Whether a police report disclosing a non‑cognizable offence after investigation must be treated as a complaint under the Explanation to Section 2(d) CrPC.
- Whether the magistrate can take cognizance of such a report as a State case.
- Whether the order of cognizance can be quashed.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 2(d), 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 504
Subjects
- non‑cognizable offence
- police report as complaint
- Section 2(d) CrPC
- Section 528 application
- quashing cognizance
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33518 of 2026
Imran And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mazhar Ullah, Mo Adnan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 81
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the
State.
2. The present application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. has been
filed by the applicants seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated
07.05.2024 along with the cognizance order dated 20.07.2024, as well
as the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 29735 of 2024 (State vs.
Smt. Haneefa and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1042 of 2023,
under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station Civil Lines, District
Moradabad, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 5, Moradabad.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the offences punishable
under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. are non-cognizable offences.
Therefore, in view of the Explanation to Section 2(d) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the police report could not have been treated as a
police report in a State case and was required to be treated as a
complaint. It is contended that the learned Magistrate has illegally
registered the case as a State case and taken cognizance accordingly.
4. It is not disputed that the offences under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C.
are non-cognizable.
5. The Explanation to Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
provides as follows:
"Explanation.—A report made by a police officer
NA528 No. 33518 of 2026
2
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. A plain reading of the aforesaid Explanation makes it clear that where,
after investigation, a police report discloses only the commission of a
non-cognizable offence, such report is deemed to be a complaint and
the police officer submitting the report is deemed to be the
complainant. Consequently, the procedure prescribed for complaint
cases is required to be followed.
7. In the present case, the material on record indicates that the charge-
sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer, instead of being treated as
a complaint, has been treated as a State case by the learned Magistrate,
which is not permissible in law.
8. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the applicants.
9. Having considered the rival submissions, perused the material on
record, and examined the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, this Court finds merit in the submissions advanced on
behalf of the applicants.
10. Accordingly, the present application is allowed in part.
11. It is directed that the police report shall be treated as a complaint in
terms of the Explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., and the court
concerned shall proceed with the matter in accordance with the
procedure prescribed for complaint cases.
12. Consequently, the order taking cognizance of the case as a State case is
quashed. The learned Magistrate shall proceed afresh in accordance
with law by treating the police report as a complaint and by following
the procedure applicable to complaint cases.
September 17, 2026
Akbar
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD AKBAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…