Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

PULKITversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

The charge‑sheet filed under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) BNSS is to be treated as a complaint, and the cognizance/summoning order is set aside.

Summary

The applicant Pulkit filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash a charge‑sheet dated 28‑05‑2025 and a cognizance/summoning order dated 17‑03‑2026 in Sessions Case No. 992 of 2026. The charge‑sheet alleged offences under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of the BNSS, which the applicant contended are non‑cognizable and, under the explanation to Section 2(1)h BNSS, must be treated as a complaint rather than a police case. Relying on earlier judgments, the applicant argued that the magistrate erred in taking cognizance as a State case. The learned AGA did not dispute these submissions. The High Court held that the charge‑sheet indeed falls within the definition of a complaint and set aside the cognizance/summoning order. The application was partly allowed, with a clarification that the lower court may still proceed treating the matter as a complaint if required.

Issues considered

  • Whether offences under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) BNSS are non‑cognizable.
  • Whether a police‑prepared charge‑sheet in a non‑cognizable offence is deemed 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

  • BNSS — s. 115(2), 2(1)h, 351(2), 352

Subjects

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

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

            APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39610 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                 :   Pradeep Kumar, Rayoof Ali
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 28.05.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated
17.03.2026 along with entire proceedings of Sessions Case No.992 of 2026
(State Vs. Pushpendra and others), arising out of Case Crime No.125 of
2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) BNS, P.S. Mandi Dhanaura,
District Amroha, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/ FTC-I,
Amroha.

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 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 applicant.

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. 39610 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 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.

                                    7. Since the legal issue has been raised by learned counsel for the applicant
                                    and as such process to issue notice to opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed
                                    with.

                                    8. In view thereof, cognizance/summoning order dated 13.07.2026 passed by
                                    learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) FACT-I, Amroha against the
                                    applicants on the basis of charge-sheet 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.

                                    September 18, 2026
                                    Ashish/-
                                                                                        (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH KUMAR 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.