Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SMT. RAJNI CHAUDHARY AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

The charge sheet under the cited sections is to be treated as a complaint, and the magistrate’s taking of cognizance as a State case was a legal error, warranting quash of the cognizance order.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash a cognizance order dated 15‑April‑2025 and the related proceedings in a case arising from offences under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of the BNSS. They contended that these offences are non‑cognizable and, per the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS, a police‑filed charge sheet in such matters must be treated as a complaint, not as a police report. The State did not dispute these legal submissions. The Court examined the definition of "complaint" and its explanation, concluding that the charge sheet indeed falls within the meaning of a complaint and that the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate erred in taking cognizance as a State case. Consequently, the order of cognizance 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 offences under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) 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 Special Chief Judicial Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the matter as a State case.
  • Whether the cognizance order dated 15‑April‑2025 can be quashed.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • non‑cognizable offence
  • charge sheet
  • complaint
  • cognizance
  • Section 528
  • quash
  • High Court
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 38397 of 2026

Smt. Rajni Chaudhary And Another
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                     :   Rakesh Kumar Gupta
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
cognizance order dated 15.4.2025 as well as entire proceeding of Case no.
3473 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime no. 0133 of 2024 under sections
115(2), 352, 351(2) BNS, PS- Dehligate, District Meerut.

3. Learned counsel for applicant has made only one submission before the
Court that offences under Sections 115(2), 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 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.

6. Before proceeding further, the relevant provisions of Section 2(1)(h)
BNSS are being reproduced for ready reference as under:-
                                                                                                       NA528 No. 38397 of 2026
                                                                             2


                                              "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)
                                        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 15.4.2025 passed by learned Special Chief
                                    Judicial Magistrate, Meerut summoning the applicants on the basis of
                                    chargesheet submitted by concerned Investigating Officer under Sections
                                    115(2), 352, 351(2) 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 11, 2026
                                    Shaswat




Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
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.