Allahabad High Court
RAMRAJ YADAV ALIAS RAJA RAM YADAV AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The charge‑sheet under Sections 324(5) and 351(3) BNSS must be treated as a complaint, and the cognizance order is set aside.
Summary
The applicants, Ramraj Yadav and another, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the cognizance and summoning order dated 29‑03‑2025 in Criminal Case No.202 of 2025, which was based on a charge‑sheet filed by the investigating officer under Sections 324(5) and 351(3) of the BNSS. They contended that the offences are non‑cognizable and, per the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS, a police report in such cases is deemed a complaint, so the magistrate should not have taken cognizance as a State case. The State opposed the prayer but did not dispute the submissions. The Court held that the explanation indeed converts the charge‑sheet into a complaint and that the magistrate erred in taking cognizance, thereby setting aside the order. The application was partly allowed, quashing the cognizance order, while noting that the case may proceed as a complaint if required.
Issues considered
- Whether offences under Sections 324(5) and 351(3) of the BNSS are non‑cognizable
- Whether a charge‑sheet filed by a police officer in respect of 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 case as a State case
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Sanhita — s. 2(1)h, 324(5), 351(3), 528
Subjects
- non‑cognizable offence
- complaint vs police report
- Section 528 application
- quashing of cognizance
- charge‑sheet as complaint
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39514 of 2026
Ramraj Yadav Alias Raja Ram Yadav And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinesh Kumar Yadav
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/summoning order dated 29.03.2025 as well as entire proceedings
of Criminal Case No.202 of 2025 (State vs. Ram Raj Yadav and others)
arising out of Case Crime No.245 of 2024, under Sections 324(5), 351(3)
BNS, P.S. Madihan, District Mirzapur, pending in the court of learned Civil
Judge (Senior Division)/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1,
Mirzapur.
3. Learned counsel for applicants has made only one submission before the
Court that offences under Sections 324(5), 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 applicants has placed reliance upon the
judgments passed in the case of Murli and others Vs. State of U.P. and
another, 2008 (61) ACC 54; Virendra Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.
and others, 2002 (45) ACC 609 and 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 applicants.
5. Before proceeding further, the relevant provisions of Section 2(1)h BNSS
are being reproduced for ready reference as under:-
"2. Definitions.- (1) In this Sanhita, unless the context otherwise requires,-
NA528 No. 39514 of 2026
2
(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."
6. In view of the above explanation, charge sheet submitted by the concerned
Investigating Officer in the present case under Sections 324(5), 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.
7. Since the legal issue has been raised by learned counsel for the applicants
and as such process to issue notice to opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed
with.
8. In view thereof, cognizance/summoning order dated 29.03.2025 passed by
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Court No.1, Mirzapur against the applicants on the basis of charge-sheet
submitted by concerned Investigating Officer under Sections 324(5),
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.
September 17, 2026
Ashish/-
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…