Allahabad High Court

RISHI RAJ PRAJAPATI AND 6 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 16 September 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

A charge sheet for non‑cognizable offences under the BNSS is to be treated as a complaint, and the order taking cognizance as a State case is set aside.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash a charge sheet dated 22‑12‑2024 and the cognizance order dated 22‑12‑2025 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Jhansi, in a case arising from offences under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 324(4) and 3(5) of the BNSS. The sole contention was that these offences are non‑cognizable and, under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS, a police‑prepared charge sheet for a non‑cognizable offence must be treated as a complaint, not as a police case. The State opposed the prayer but did not dispute the legal submissions. The High Court held that the investigating officer’s charge sheet indeed falls within the definition of a complaint and that the lower court erred in taking cognizance as a State case. Consequently, the order of 22‑12‑2025 summoning the applicants was set aside, and the application was partly allowed, with a direction that the case may proceed as a complaint if required.

Issues considered

Whether the offences under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 324(4) and 3(5) BNSS 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 Additional Civil Judge erred in taking cognizance of the matter as a State case.

Legislation cited

Bihar Negotiable Sanhita (BNSS) — s. 115(2), 2(1)(h), 324(4), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 528

Subjects

non‑cognizable offence
complaint vs police case
charge sheet
Section 528 application
quash order
criminal procedure
BNSS

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 38052 of 2026

Rishi Raj Prajapati And 6 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Srivastava, Prashant
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 22.12.2024 and cognizance order dated 22.12.2025 passed by
learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-1, Jhansi as well as entire
proceeding of Case no. 59786 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime no. 337 of
2024 under sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 324(4), 3(5) BNS, PS- Babina,
District Jhansi.

3. Learned counsel for applicant has made only one submission before the
Court that offences under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 324(4), 3(5) 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. 38052 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),
324(4), 3(5) 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 22.12.2025 passed by learned Additional
Civil Judge (Senior Division)-1, Jhansi summoning the applicants on the
basis of chargesheet submitted by concerned Investigating Officer under
Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 324(4), 3(5) 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…