Allahabad High Court
SAMIKSHA AGRAWAL AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
A charge sheet filed for non‑cognizable offences under the B.N.S.S. is to be treated as a complaint, and the magistrate’s cognizance order is erroneous and is set aside.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash a charge sheet dated 22‑12‑2025 and a cognizance order dated 01‑05‑2026 issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, in a case arising from offences under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of the B.N.S.S. The applicants contended that these offences are non‑cognizable and, per the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the B.N.S.S., a police report of a non‑cognizable offence must be treated as a complaint, not as a police case. The opposing counsel did not dispute these submissions. The High Court examined the statutory definition and held that the charge sheet indeed constitutes a complaint, rendering the magistrate’s cognizance as a State case a legal error. Consequently, the court set aside the cognizance order and partially allowed the application, while noting that the case may proceed as a complaint if required. The order clarifies that the magistrate may now treat the matter as a complaint proceeding in accordance with law.
Issues considered
- Whether offences under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of the B.N.S.S. are non‑cognizable.
- Whether a police report (charge sheet) relating to a non‑cognizable offence is deemed a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the B.N.S.S.
- Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the matter as a State case.
- Whether the cognizance order and charge sheet can be set aside.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 115(2), 2(1)(h), 351(2), 352, 528
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. - 39254 of 2026
Samiksha Agrawal And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jayant Prakash Singh
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 22.12.2025 and cognizance order dated 01.05.2026 passed by
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad as well as entire proceeding of
Case no. 6383 of 2026 (State vs. Avnish Gupta and another) arising out of
Case Crime no. 508 of 2025 under sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) BNS, PS-
Civil Lines, District Moradabad.
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. 39254 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 01.05.2026 passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Moradabad 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…