Allahabad High Court

RAJE @ RAJARAM AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

A police‑prepared charge sheet relating to non‑cognizable offences must be treated as a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS, making the magistrate’s cognizance order invalid.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash a charge sheet dated 10‑02‑2026 and a cognizance order dated 04‑07‑2026 issued by a Judicial Magistrate in Bijnor. They contended that the offences alleged—Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of the BNS—are non‑cognizable and that, under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS, a police‑prepared charge sheet in such cases must be treated as a complaint, not as a police report. The opposing counsel did not dispute these submissions. The Court examined the definition and explanation of "complaint" in Section 2(1)(h) BNSS and held that the charge sheet indeed qualifies as a complaint, rendering the magistrate’s cognizance order a legal error. Consequently, the order of 04‑07‑2026 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 the offences under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) BNS are non‑cognizable.
Whether a charge sheet filed by a police officer for a non‑cognizable offence is deemed a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) BNSS.
Whether the Judicial Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the charge sheet as a State case.

Legislation cited

BNSS — s. 2(1)(h)

Subjects

non‑cognizable offence
charge sheet
complaint
cognizance
Section 528
quashing
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34425 of 2026

Raje @ Rajaram And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nitin Kumar, Rajendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. This matter is being taken up out of turn from the category of cases
which have been mentioned in the morning on account of urgency. Heard
learned counsel for parties.

2. The present application has been preferred for seeking quashing of charge
sheet dated 10.2.2026 and cognizance order dated 4.7.2026 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 2, Nagina, Bijnor as well as entire
proceeding of Case no. 58 of 2026 (State vs. Raje @ Rajaram and others)
arising out of Case Crime no. 198 of 2025 under sections 115(2), 352,
351(2) BNS, PS- Barhapur, District Bijnor.

3. Learned counsel for applicant has made only one submission before the
Court that offences under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) 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,
NA528 No. 34425 of 2026
2

process to issue notice to opposite party no. 2 is hereby dispensed with.

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 115(2), 352, 351(2)
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 4.7.2026 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate, Court no. 2, Nagina, Bijnor summoning the applicants on the
basis of chargesheet submitted by concerned Investigating Officer under
Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) 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.)
September 8, 2026
Shaswat

Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…