Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

ROSHANI CHAURASIAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

The charge sheet filed under Sections 352 and 351(3) BNSS must be treated as a complaint, and the magistrate’s cognizance order is set aside.

Summary

Roshani Chaurasia filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash a charge sheet dated 21‑09‑2025 and a cognizance order dated 10‑04‑2026 issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate‑I, Varanasi, in a case arising from offences under Sections 352 and 351(3) BNSS. The applicant contended that these offences are non‑cognizable and, per the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) BNSS, the charge sheet should be treated as a complaint rather than a police case. The State did not contest these legal submissions. The Court examined the definition and explanation of "complaint" under Section 2(1)(h) BNSS and held that the charge sheet indeed falls within the meaning of a complaint. Consequently, the magistrate’s cognizance order was set aside as a legal error. The application was partly allowed, quashing the cognizance order, while noting that the case may proceed as a complaint if required by law.

Issues considered

  • Whether offences under Sections 352 and 351(3) BNSS are non‑cognizable.
  • Whether a charge sheet filed by a police officer for a non‑cognizable offence is to be treated as a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) BNSS.
  • Whether the magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the matter as a State case.

Legislation cited

Subjects

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

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39038 of 2026

Roshani Chaurasia
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                     :   Vinay Kumar Pandey
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 21.9.2025 and cognizance order dated 10.4.2026 passed by
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Varanasi as well as entire
proceeding of Case no. 42203 of 2026 (State vs. Roshani Chaurasia) arising
out of Case Crime no. 165 of 2025 under sections 352, 351(3) BNS, PS-
Kotwali, District Varanasi.

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. 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. 39038 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 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.

                                    8. In view thereof, order dated 10.4.2026 passed by learned Additional Chief
                                    Judicial Magistrate-I, Varanasi summoning the applicant on the basis of
                                    chargesheet submitted by concerned Investigating Officer under Sections
                                    352, 351(3) 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 23, 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.