Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SAROJ DEVI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

The charge‑sheet under Sections 352 and 351(2) BNSS must be treated as a complaint, and the cognizance order is set aside.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash a charge‑sheet dated 20‑08‑2025 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 08‑04‑2026 in Criminal Case No. 6299 of 2026. They contended that the offences alleged under Sections 352 and 351(2) of the BNSS are non‑cognizable and, per 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 opposed the prayer but did not dispute these submissions. The Court examined the definition and explanation in Section 2(1)(h) and held that the charge‑sheet must be treated as a complaint, rendering the magistrate’s cognizance order erroneous. Consequently, the cognizance/summoning order was set aside, and the application was partly allowed, with a direction that the case may proceed as a complaint if required by law.

Issues considered

  • Whether offences under Sections 352 and 351(2) of the BNSS are non‑cognizable.
  • Whether a charge‑sheet filed by a police officer in respect of a non‑cognizable offence is deemed a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS.
  • Whether the magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the case as a State case.

Legislation cited

  • BNSS — s. 2(1)h, 351(2), 352, 528

Subjects

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

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

            APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 38129 of 2026

Saroj Devi And Another
                                                                .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                   .....Opposite
                                                                         Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                     :   Girja Shankar Prajapati
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 20.08.2025 along with cognizance/summoning order
dated 08.04.2026 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.6299 of
2026 (State vs. Pramod and Another) arising out of Case Crime No.246 of
2025, under Sections 352, 351(2) BNS, P.S. Thariyaon, District- Fatehpur,
pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No.2, Fatehpur.

3. Learned counsel for applicants has made only one submission before the
Court that offences under Sections 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 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. 38129 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 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.

                                    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 08.04.2026 passed
                                    by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Fatehpur,
                                    against the applicants on the basis of charge-sheet submitted by concerned
                                    Investigating Officer under Sections 352, 351(2) 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 17, 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.