Allahabad High Court

MONU YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 17 September 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

A chargesheet filed for non‑cognizable offences under Sections 323 and 504 IPC is to be treated as a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(d) CrPC, rendering the magistrate's cognizance order invalid.

Summary

The applicant Monu Yadav filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash a chargesheet dated 22‑08‑2023 and a cognizance/summoning order dated 22‑03‑2024 in a case under Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC. The applicant contended that the offences are non‑cognizable and, per the explanation to Section 2(d) of the CrPC, the chargesheet should be treated as a complaint rather than a police report, rendering the magistrate's cognizance order erroneous. The State opposed the prayer but did not dispute the legal submissions. The High Court accepted the legal argument, held that the chargesheet indeed falls within the definition of a complaint, and set aside the cognizance order. The application was partly allowed, with the court noting that the trial court may still proceed with the matter as a complaint case if required.

Issues considered

Whether offences under Sections 323 and 504 IPC are non‑cognizable for the purpose of the present case
Whether a chargesheet filed by a police officer in respect of a non‑cognizable offence is deemed a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(d) CrPC
Whether the magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the case as a State case

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 2(d)
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 504

Subjects

non‑cognizable offence
chargesheet
complaint
Section 528 CrPC
quash order
cognizance
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39609 of 2026

Monu Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hari Om Sahu, Vivek Singh
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
chargesheet dated 22.08.2023 and cognizance/summoning order dated
22.03.2024 along with entire proceedings of N.C.R. No.92 of 2022,
under Section 323, 504 IPC, P.S. Kachhawa, District Mirzapur, pending
in the court of learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.6,
Mirzapur.

3. Learned counsel for applicants has made only one submission before
the Court that offences under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. are non-cognizable
and in view of the explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., the chargesheet
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 judgment 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 applicants.

5. Since the arguments as advanced on behalf of learned counsel for
applicants, are based on legal issue, no notice is required to be issued to
opposite party no.2.
NA528 No. 39609 of 2026
2

6. Before proceeding further, the relevant provisions of Section 2 (d) of
Cr.P.C. are being reproduced for ready reference as under:-

"2. Definitions.-In this Code, unless the context otherwise
requires,-

(d) "complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing
to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this
Code, 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 323,
504 I.P.C. 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 22.03.2024 passed in Case No.231 of 2024
(State Vs. Monu Yadav), arising out of N.C.R. No.92 of 2022,
summoning the applicant on the basis of chargesheet submitted by
concerned Investigating Officer under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. 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 18, 2026
Ashish/-

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…