Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

DHARMENDRA PRASADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

A charge sheet under Sections 115(2), 351(3) and 352 of the BNSS relating to a non‑cognizable offence must be treated as a complaint, and the magistrate’s cognizance order is therefore set aside.

Summary

The applicant, Dharmendra Prasad, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash a charge sheet dated 13‑09‑2024 and a cognizance order dated 11‑02‑2025 in Criminal Case No. 2600 of 2025. He contended that the offences alleged under Sections 115(2), 351(3) and 352 of the BNSS are non‑cognizable and, per the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS, a police report in such cases must be treated as a complaint, not as a police case. The court examined the statutory definition and the cited precedent (Shakila Bano v. State of U.P.) and held that the charge sheet indeed falls within the meaning of a complaint. Consequently, the magistrate’s order taking cognizance as a State case was held to be a legal error. The court set aside the cognizance order and partially allowed the application, while noting that the case may still proceed as a complaint if required. The order was dated 18‑September‑2026.

Issues considered

  • Whether offences under Sections 115(2), 351(3) and 352 of the BNSS are non‑cognizable.
  • Whether a charge sheet filed by a police officer for a non‑cognizable offence is to be treated as a complaint under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the 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(3), 352

Subjects

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

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39688 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                            :    Sweta Gaur
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                       :    G.A.

Court No. - 79
                 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Ms. Sweta Gaur, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA
for the State.

2. The present application has been preferred for seeking quashing of
chargesheet dated 13.09.2024 and cognizance order dated 11.02.2025 along
with entire proceedings of Case No.2600 of 2025 (State Vs. Dharmendra
Prasad), arising out of Case Crime No.190 of 2024, under Section 115(2),
351(3), 352 of BNS, P.S. Garwar, District Ballia, pending in the court of
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Ballia.

3. Learned counsel for applicant has made only one submission before the
Court that offences under Section 115(2), 351(3), 352 of BNS are non-
cognizable and in view of the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of 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 judgment passed in the case of Shakila Bano and others
Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2008 (61) ACC 636.

4. Since the argument as advanced on behalf of learned counsel for
applicant, is based on legal issue, no notice is required to be issued to
opposite party no.2.

5. Although, learned AGA opposed the prayer sought through the instant
application but did not dispute the submissions so made by learned counsel
for applicant.

6. Before proceeding further, the relevant provisions of Section 2(1)(h) of
BNSS are being reproduced for ready reference as under:-
                                                                                              NA528 No. 39688 of 2026
                                                                     2

                                         "2. Definitions.-(1) 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 Section 115(2), 351(3), 352
                                    of BNS, should have been treated as complaint and it is to be decided as
                                    complaint but 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 11.02.2025 passed in Case No.2600 of 2025
                                    (State Vs. Dharmendra Prasad), arising out of Case Crime No.190 of
                                    2024, summoning the applicant on the basis of chargesheet submitted by
                                    concerned Investigating Officer under Section 115(2), 351(3), 352 of 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
                                    Vivek Kr.
                                                                                          (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
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.