Allahabad High Court

RAM NARAYAN SINGH AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 16 September 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

A charge‑sheet filed for non‑cognizable offences under Sections 115(2) and 351(3) BNS is deemed a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) BNSS, rendering the magistrate’s cognizance order invalid.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the charge‑sheet dated 13‑12‑2025 and the cognizance order dated 22‑4‑2026 issued by the Additional Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Tilhar. They contended that the offences alleged under Sections 115(2) and 351(3) of the BNS are non‑cognizable and, per the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS, a police‑prepared charge‑sheet in such a case must be treated as a complaint, not as 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) and 351(3) 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 magistrate’s cognizance order is vitiated on this ground.

Legislation cited

BNS — s. 115(2), 351(3)
BNSS — s. 2(1)(h)

Subjects

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

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 38028 of 2026

Ram Narayan Singh And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Mishra
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 charge
sheet dated 13.12.2025 and cognizance order dated 22.4.2026 passed by
learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Tilhar,
Shahjahanpur as well as entire proceeding of Case no. 3348 of 2026 (State
vs. Ram Narayan Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 0268 of
2025 under sections 115(2), 351(3) BNS, PS- Madnapur, District
Shahjahanpur.

3. Learned counsel for applicant 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 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. 38028 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), 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.

8. In view thereof, order dated 22.4.2026 passed by learned Additional Civil
Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Tilhar, Shahjahanpur
summoning the applicants on the basis of chargesheet submitted by
concerned Investigating Officer under Sections 115(2), 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.

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
September 17, 2026
Shaswat

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…