Allahabad High Court

SACHINversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 10 September 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The charge‑sheet filed for the non‑cognizable offences under Sections 352 and 351(3) BNSS must be treated as a complaint, and the cognizance order is set aside.

Summary

The applicant Sachin filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the cognizance order in case 38659 of 2026, which was based on a charge‑sheet filed by the police for offences under Sections 352 and 351(3) of the BNSS. The applicant contended that these offences are non‑cognizable and, 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. The Court examined the definition of “complaint” 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 dated 16‑06‑2026 was set aside, and the application was partly allowed. The order, however, clarified that the trial court may continue the proceeding as a complaint case if it so chooses.

Issues considered

The offences under Sections 352 and 351(3) BNSS are non‑cognizable.
Whether a police charge‑sheet for a non‑cognizable offence is to be treated as a complaint under Section 2(1)h of the BNSS, thereby affecting the validity of the cognizance order.

Legislation cited

Bihar Negotiable Sanhita — s. 2(1)h, 351(3), 352

Subjects

non‑cognizable offence
charge‑sheet
complaint
cognizance
Section 528 application
quashing proceedings
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 38347 of 2026

Sachin
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjive Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present application has been preferred for seeking quashing the entire
proceedings of Case No.38659 of 2026 (State vs. Sachin) arising out of Case
Crime No.150 of 2025, under Sections 352, 351(3) BNS, Police Station-
Usawan, District- Budaun, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr.
Div.)/Fast Track Court/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun,
including charge-sheet dated 14.12.2025 and cognizance/summoning order
dated 16.06.2026.

3. Learned counsel for applicant has made only one submission before the
Court that offences under Sections 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 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:-

"2. Definitions.- (1) In this Sanhita, unless the context otherwise requires,-
NA528 No. 38347 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(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 16.06.2026 passed by
learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/Fast Track Court/Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Budaun against the applicants on the basis of charge-sheet
submitted by concerned Investigating Officer under Sections 352,
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

Checking your session…