Allahabad High Court
SAMRUN NISHA AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The order of cognizance dated 04‑07‑2025 is set aside as the charge‑sheet should have been treated as a complaint, not a police case.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash a charge‑sheet dated 13‑02‑2025 and the cognizance order dated 04‑07‑2025 in Criminal Case No. 12543 of 2025. They contended that the offences alleged—Sections 115(2), 351(3) and 352 of the BNSS—are non‑cognizable and that, under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS, a police report of a non‑cognizable offence must be treated as a complaint, not as a police case. The court accepted this legal submission, held that the magistrate erred in taking cognizance as a State case, and set aside the order of 04‑07‑2025. Consequently, the charge‑sheet cannot proceed as a police case, though the court left open the possibility of proceeding as a complaint. The application was therefore partly allowed.
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 must 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 case as a State case.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Sanhita (BNSS) — s. 115(2), 2(1)(h), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- non‑cognizable offence
- charge‑sheet
- complaint
- Section 528 application
- quash of proceedings
- criminal procedure
- BNSS
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39730 of 2026
Samrun Nisha And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ankit Kumar Dubey, Ashutosh Kumar
Shukla
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 13.02.2025 and cognizance order dated 04.07.2025 along
with entire proceedings of Case No.12543 of 2025 (State Vs. Samrun Nisha
and others), arising out of Case Crime No.73 of 2025, under Section 115(2),
351(3), 352 of BNS, P.S. Kotwali, District Maharajganj, pending in the court
of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj.
3. Learned counsel for applicants 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 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. Since the argument as advanced on behalf of learned counsel for
applicants, 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 applicants.
6. Before proceeding further, the relevant provisions of Section 2(1)(h) of
BNSS are being reproduced for ready reference as under:-
NA528 No. 39730 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 04.07.2025 passed in Case No.12543 of 2025
(State Vs. Samrun Nisha and others), arising out of Case Crime No.73 of
2025, summoning the applicants 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
Checking your session…