Allahabad High Court
CHANU AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
A charge‑sheet filed for non‑cognizable offences under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) BNS must be treated as a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS, rendering the magistrate’s cognizance order invalid.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the charge‑sheet dated 12 May 2025 and the cognizance order dated 27 August 2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi, in a case arising from offences under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of the BNS. The applicants contended that these offences are non‑cognizable and, per the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS, a police report in such matters must be treated as a complaint, not as a police case. The opposite party did not dispute the legal submissions. The High Court held that the charge‑sheet indeed falls within the definition of 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 case may proceed as a complaint if required. The order does not preclude the lower court from continuing the proceedings in the appropriate complaint mode.
Issues considered
- Whether offences under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) BNS are non‑cognizable.
- Whether a police‑prepared charge‑sheet for a non‑cognizable offence is deemed a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) BNSS.
- Whether the cognizance order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is liable to be set aside on this ground.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Sanhita (BNS) — s. 115(2), 351(2), 352
- Bihar Negotiable Sanhita (BNSS) — s. 2(1)(h)
Subjects
- non‑cognizable offence
- charge‑sheet
- complaint
- cognizance
- Section 528
- quash
- criminal procedure
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39141 of 2026
Chanu And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Majahar Ali
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. This matter is being taken up out of turn from the category of cases
which have been mentioned in the morning on account of urgency. Heard
learned counsel for parties.
2. The present application has been preferred for seeking quashing of charge
sheet dated 12.5.2025 and cognizance order dated 27.8.2025 passed by
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi as well as entire proceeding of
Case no. 19050 of 2025 (State vs. Chanu and others) arising out of Case
Crime no. 195 of 2025 under sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) BNS, PS-
Gopiganj, District Bhadohi at Gyanpur.
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,
NA528 No. 39141 of 2026
2
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:-
"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 27.8.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bhadohi 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 16, 2026
Shaswat
Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…