Allahabad High Court
ANIL KUMAR PATELversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
A police‑prepared charge sheet for non‑cognizable offences under Sections 324(4), 351(2) and 352 BNS must be treated as a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) BNSS, rendering the magistrate's cognizance order erroneous.
Summary
The applicant Anil Kumar Patel filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the charge sheet dated 24‑03‑2025 and the cognizance order dated 07‑11‑2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau, in a case arising from offences under Sections 324(4), 351(2) and 352 BNS. The applicant contended 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 did not dispute the legal submissions. The Court held that the explanation indeed converts such a police report into 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 proceedings may continue as a complaint case if required.
Issues considered
- Whether offences under Sections 324(4), 351(2) and 352 BNS are cognizable.
- Whether a police‑prepared charge sheet for a non‑cognizable offence is to be treated as a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) BNSS.
- Whether the cognizance order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate is liable to be set aside.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 2(1)(h)
Subjects
- non‑cognizable offence
- complaint vs police report
- Section 528 application
- quashing charge sheet
- cognizance error
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 38427 of 2026
Anil Kumar Patel
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Satya Prakash Rathor, Vivek Kumar
Singh
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 of charge
sheet dated 24.3.2025 and cognizance order dated 7.11.2025 passed by
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau as well as entire proceeding of Case
no. 465 of 2025 (State vs. Anil Kumar Patel) arising out of Case Crime no.
594 of 2024 under sections 324(4), 351(2), 352 BNS, PS- Ghosi, District
Mau.
3. Learned counsel for applicant has made only one submission before the
Court that offences under Sections 324(4), 351(2), 352 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. 38427 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 324(4), 351(2), 352
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 7.11.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Mau summoning the applicant on the basis of chargesheet
submitted by concerned Investigating Officer under Sections 324(4),
351(2), 352 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
Checking your session…