Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

RAJEEV AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

The cognizance/summoning order is set aside as the charge sheet for non‑cognizable offences must be treated as a complaint, not a police case.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the charge sheet dated 01.08.2025 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 11.02.2026 issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, in a case arising from non‑cognizable offences under Sections 115(2) and 351(3) BNSS. The applicants argued that, pursuant to the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) BNSS, a police report of a non‑cognizable offence is deemed a complaint and therefore the charge sheet cannot be treated as a police case for taking cognizance. The State did not contest this submission. The Court held that the magistrate erred in taking cognizance as a State case and set aside the cognizance order, directing that the matter may proceed as a complaint if required. The application was partly allowed, and the order clarified that the case can be dealt with as a complaint in accordance with law.

Issues considered

  • Whether offences under Sections 115(2) and 351(3) BNSS are non‑cognizable.
  • Whether a charge sheet filed by a police officer for a non‑cognizable offence must be treated as a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) BNSS.
  • Whether the magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the case as a State case.

Legislation cited

  • B.N.S.S. — s. 115(2), 2(1)h, 351(3), 528

Subjects

  • non-cognizable offence
  • charge sheet
  • complaint
  • cognizance
  • Section 528
  • BNSS
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

            APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36940 of 2026

Rajeev And 3 Others
                                                                .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                   .....Opposite
                                                                         Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                      :   Sushil Kumar Dubey
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 the
charge sheet dated 01.08.2025, cognizance/summoning order dated
11.02.2026 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No.3, Etawah as well as entire proceedings of Case no.54 of 2026 (State Vs.
Rajeev Kumar and others) under sections 115(2), 351(3) B.N.S., arising out
of case crime no.133 of 2025, P.S. Usrahar, District Etawah.

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. 36940 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 11.02.2026 passed by
                                    learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Etawah 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 11, 2026
                                    Saif
                                                                                        (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
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.