Allahabad High Court
NAVEEN KUMAR BHATI ALIAS NAVEEN KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The charge‑sheet under Sections 323 and 504 IPC must be treated as a complaint, and the order of cognizance is set aside.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad considered an application under Section 528 CrPC filed by Naveen Kumar seeking quashing of the cognizance and summoning order dated 30 March 2022 in State v. Naveen Kumar (Case No.1520 of 2022) arising from a crime under Sections 323 and 504 IPC. The applicant contended that both offences are non‑cognizable and, under the explanation to Section 2(d) of the CrPC, the charge‑sheet filed by the investigating officer should be treated as a complaint, not as a police case, and therefore the magistrate erred in taking cognizance. The State did not dispute the legal submissions. The Court held that the charge‑sheet indeed falls within the definition of a complaint and set aside the order of cognizance, while allowing the lower court to proceed with the matter as a complaint if it so chooses. Consequently, the application was partly allowed and the earlier order was vacated.
Issues considered
- Whether offences under Sections 323 and 504 IPC are non‑cognizable.
- Whether a charge‑sheet filed for a non‑cognizable offence is deemed a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(d) CrPC.
- Whether the magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the case as a police case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 2(d), 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 504
Subjects
- quash of criminal proceedings
- cognizance
- non-cognizable offence
- charge sheet as complaint
- Section 528 CrPC
- Section 2(d) CrPC
- IPC 323
- IPC 504
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36306 of 2026
Naveen Kumar Bhati Alias Naveen Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anubhav Sinha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
2. The present application has been preferred for seeking quashing of
cognizance/summoning order dated 30.03.2022 along with entire
proceedings of Case No.1520 of 2022 (State Vs. Naveen Kumar) arising
out of Case Crime No.05 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504 IPC, P.S.
Surajpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the court of learned
C.J.M. IInd, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for applicant has made only one submission before the
Court that offences under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. are non-cognizable and
in view of the explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., the chargesheet 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 judgment 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. Since the arguments as advanced on behalf of learned counsel for
applicant, are based on legal issue, no notice is required to be issued to
opposite party no.2.
6. Before proceeding further, the relevant provisions of Section 2 (d) of
NA528 No. 36306 of 2026
2
Cr.P.C. are being reproduced for ready reference as under:-
"2. Definitions.-In this Code, unless the context otherwise
requires,-
(d) "complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing
to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this
Code, 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 323,
504 I.P.C. 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 30.03.2022 passed in Case No.1520 of
2022 (State Vs. Naveen Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No.05 of
2021, summoning the applicants on the basis of chargesheet submitted by
concerned Investigating Officer under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. 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 9, 2026
Ashish/-
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…