Allahabad High Court
TASFA BANO AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The charge‑sheet for the non‑cognizable offences must be treated as a complaint, and the cognizance order taking the case as a State case is set aside.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash a charge‑sheet dated 19‑01‑2025 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 30‑07‑2025 in Criminal Case No.101633 of 2025. They contended that the offences alleged under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of the BNSS are non‑cognizable and, per the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS, a police report in such matters is deemed a complaint, not a police case. The State did not dispute these submissions. The High Court held that the charge‑sheet must indeed be treated as a complaint and that the learned 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(2) BNSS are non‑cognizable.
- Whether a police report/charge‑sheet for a non‑cognizable offence is deemed a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) BNSS.
- Whether the cognizance/summoning order treating the matter as a State case is legally valid.
- Whether the charge‑sheet and related proceedings can be quashed.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable and Settlement of ... (BNSS) — s. 115(2), 2(1)h, 351(2), 352, 528
Subjects
- non‑cognizable offence
- charge‑sheet
- complaint
- cognizance
- Section 528
- criminal procedure
- quash
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35971 of 2026
Tasfa Bano And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Tiwari
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 19.01.2025 along with cognizance/summoning order
dated 30.07.2025 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.101633
of 2025 (State vs. Abdul Sattar and others), arising out of Case Crime No.14
of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) BNS, P.S. Rail Bazar, District
Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kanpur Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for applicants 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 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. 35971 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(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.
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 30.07.2025 passed by
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar against the applicants on
the basis of charge-sheet 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.
September 29, 2026
Ashish/-
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…