Allahabad High Court
VEERAMPAL SINGH @ VEERPALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The charge‑sheet is deemed a complaint under Section 2(1)h BNSS and the cognizance/summoning order is set aside.
Summary
The applicant, Veerampal Singh, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking quashing of a charge‑sheet dated 25‑03‑2026 and the cognizance order dated 28‑07‑2026 in Criminal Case No. 1164 of 2026. He contended that the offences alleged—Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(3) of the BNSS—are non‑cognizable and that, under the explanation to Section 2(1)h of the BNSS, a police report of a non‑cognizable offence is deemed a complaint, not a police case. The State did not dispute this submission. Relying on precedents (Murli v. State of U.P., Virendra Singh v. State of U.P., Shakila Bano v. State of U.P.), the High Court held that the charge‑sheet must be treated as a complaint and 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 if required.
Issues considered
- Whether a charge‑sheet filed for offences that are non‑cognizable under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(3) of the BNSS is to be treated as a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(1)h BNSS.
- Whether the Judicial Magistrate could validly take cognizance of the case as a State case on the basis of such a charge‑sheet.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Sanhita (BNSS) — s. 115(2), 2(1)h, 351(3), 352, 528
Subjects
- non‑cognizable offence
- charge‑sheet
- complaint
- Section 2(1)h BNSS
- cognizance
- criminal procedure
- BNSS
- Section 528
- quashing
- magistrate
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37883 of 2026
Veerampal Singh @ Veerpal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar Gautam
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri Sarukh Khan, 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 25.03.2026 and cognizance/summoning order dated
28.07.2026 along with entire proceedings of Case No.1164 of 2026, (State
Vs. Veerampal Singh @ Veerpal and others), arising out of Case Crime
No.95 of 2026, under Sections 115(2),352, 351(3) BNS, P.S. Gonda,
District Aligarh, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Iglas,
Aligarh.
3. Learned counsel for applicant has made only one submission before the
Court that offences under Sections115(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:-
NA528 No. 37883 of 2026
2
"2. Definitions.- (1) 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."
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 28.07.2026 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate, Iglas, Aligarh 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 23, 2026
Ashish/-
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…