Allahabad High Court
AKHILESH KUMAR SINGH AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
A police report of a non‑cognizable offence under Sections 115(2) and 351(3) BNSS is deemed a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(1)h, so the magistrate cannot take cognizance as a State case.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the charge‑sheet dated 24‑01‑2026 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 09‑03‑2026 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, in a case arising from offences under Sections 115(2) and 351(3) of the BNSS. They contended that these offences are non‑cognizable and, under the explanation to Section 2(1)h of the BNSS, a police report of a non‑cognizable offence is deemed a complaint, so the charge‑sheet cannot be treated as a police case. The State did not dispute this submission. The Court held that the explanation indeed makes the police report a complaint, and therefore 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 clarification that the case may proceed as a complaint if required. The order does not preclude further proceedings in the appropriate complaint mode.
Issues considered
- Whether offences under Sections 115(2) and 351(3) of the BNSS are non‑cognizable.
- Whether a police charge‑sheet in respect of such non‑cognizable offences is to be treated as a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(1)h of the BNSS, thereby invalidating the magistrate’s cognizance as a State case.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 115(2), 2(1)h, 351(3), 528
Subjects
- non‑cognizable offence
- charge‑sheet
- complaint
- cognizance
- Section 528
- magistrate error
- BNSS
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36014 of 2026
Akhilesh Kumar Singh And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dileep Kumar Singh
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 24.01.2026 along with cognizance/summoning order
dated 09.03.2026 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi as
well as entire proceedings of Case No.21596 of 2026 (State vs. Akhilesh
Kumar Singh and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.552 of 2025, under
Sections 115(2), 351(3) BNS, P.S. Cantt., District- Varanasi.
3. Learned counsel for applicants has made only one submission before the
Court that offences under Sections 115(2), 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. 36014 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), 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 09.03.2026 passed by
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi against the applicants on the
basis of charge-sheet submitted by concerned Investigating Officer under
Sections 115(2), 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 29, 2026
Saif
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…