Allahabad High Court
DHARMENDRA KUMAR SAINIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The cognizance/summoning order is set aside and the charge‑sheet must be treated as a complaint, not a police case.
Summary
The applicant, Dharmendra Kumar Saini, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash a charge‑sheet dated 13‑10‑2024 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 11‑12‑2024 in a case pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. The applicant contended that the offences alleged—Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(3) of the B.N.S. Act—are non‑cognizable and, under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the same Act, a police report of a non‑cognizable offence is deemed a complaint, not a police case. Relying on precedents (Murli v. State of U.P., Virendra Singh v. State of U.P., Shakila Bano v. State of U.P.), the court held that 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 direction that the matter may proceed as a complaint case if required. The order does not preclude the lower court from treating the matter as a complaint in accordance with law.
Issues considered
- Whether Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(3) of the B.N.S. Act are non‑cognizable offences.
- Whether a charge‑sheet filed by a police officer in respect of a non‑cognizable offence must be treated as a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the B.N.S. Act.
- Whether the magistrate could validly take cognizance of the case as a State case.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. Act — s. 115(2), 2(1)(h), 351(3), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Subjects
- quash of charge sheet
- non‑cognizable offence
- complaint vs police case
- Section 528 CrPC
- B.N.S. Act
- cognizance
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36310 of 2026
Dharmendra Kumar Saini
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajeev Kumar Saini
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
charge-sheet dated 13.10.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated
11.12.2024 along with entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.344
of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, P.S. Hanumant Vihar,
District South (Commissiionerate Kanpur Nagar) pending in the court of
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vth Kanpur Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for applicant has made only one submission before the
Court that offences under Sections 115(2), 352, 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 applicant 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 applicant.
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. 36310 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(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 applicant
and as such process to issue notice to opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed
with.
8. In view thereof, cognizance/summoning order dated 11.12.2024 passed by
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vth Kanpur Nagar against the
applicants on the basis of charge-sheet submitted by concerned Investigating
Officer under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) 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 9, 2026
Ashish/-
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…