Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

MUNNA SINGH AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UP AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

A charge‑sheet filed for non‑cognizable offences under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) BNS is deemed a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) BNSS, rendering the magistrate’s cognizance order a legal error that must be quashed.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash a cognizance order dated 01‑04‑2026 issued by the Civil Judge in Shahjahanpur, which was based on a charge‑sheet filed by the investigating officer under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) BNS. The applicants contended that these offences are non‑cognizable and, per the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) BNSS, a police report of a non‑cognizable offence must be treated as a complaint, not a police case. The State did not dispute this legal submission. The High Court held that the charge‑sheet indeed qualifies as a complaint and that the magistrate erred in taking cognizance as a State case. Consequently, the cognizance order was set aside and the application was partly allowed, with a direction that the case may proceed as a complaint if required. The order does not preclude the lower court from continuing the proceedings in the appropriate complaint mode.

Issues considered

  • Whether 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 cognizance order passed by the Civil Judge is liable to be set aside.

Legislation cited

  • B.N.S.S. — s. 115(2), 2(1)(h), 351(2), 352, 528

Subjects

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

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36803 of 2026

Munna Singh And 2 Others
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Mujtaba Shamim Akhtar, Ramendra
                                Shukla
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
cognizance order dated 01.04.2026 passed by learned Civil Judge
(J.D.)/J.M., Jalalabad, District Shahjahanpur as well as entire proceeding of
Case no. 584 of 2026 (Munna Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) arising out
of Case Crime no. 261 of 2025 under sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) BNS, PS-
Kalan, District Shahjahanpur.

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,
process to issue notice to opposite party no. 2 is hereby dispensed with.
                                                                                                       NA528 No. 36803 of 2026
                                                                             2


                                    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 01.04.2026 passed by learned Civil Judge
                                    (J.D.)/J.M., Jalalabad, District Shahjahanpur 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 17, 2026
                                    Shaswat




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

Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.