Allahabad High Court
ILTAFURRHMAN AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The charge‑sheet under Sections 131, 352 and 351(3) BNSS must be treated as a complaint, and the cognizance/summoning order is set aside.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the charge‑sheet dated 07‑03‑2026 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 21‑07‑2026 in Criminal Case No. 16525 of 2026. They contended that the offences alleged – Sections 131, 352 and 351(3) of the BNSS – are non‑cognizable and, under the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS, a police report in such cases is deemed a complaint, not a police case. The State did not dispute these submissions. The Court examined the definition of "complaint" and the explanation, concluding that the charge‑sheet must be treated as a complaint and that the magistrate erred in taking cognizance as a State case. Consequently, the cognizance/summoning order was set aside and the application was partly allowed, with a clarification that the trial court may continue the proceeding as a complaint case if required.
Issues considered
- Whether Sections 131, 352 and 351(3) of the BNSS are non‑cognizable offences.
- 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’s cognizance of the case as a State prosecution was a legal error.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 131, 2(1)h, 351(3), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Subjects
- non‑cognizable offence
- charge‑sheet
- complaint
- cognizance
- BNSS
- Section 2(1)(h)
- quashing of charge‑sheet
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40001 of 2026
Iltafurrhman And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Kumar Singh, Monika Anuragi
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
charge-sheet dated 07.03.2026 along with cognizance/summoning order
dated 21.07.2026 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.16525
of 2026 (State vs. Iltafurrhman and Others) arising out of Case Crime
No.437 of 2025, under Sections 131, 352, 351(3) BNS, P.S. Dudhara,
District- Sant Kabir Nagar, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge
(Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for applicants has made only one submission before the
Court that offences under Sections 131, 352, 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 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. 40001 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 131, 352, 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 21.07.2026 passed by
learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar
against the applicants on the basis of charge-sheet submitted by concerned
Investigating Officer under Sections 131, 352, 351(3) BNS treating the same
as State case, is set aside, in respect of applicant(s) herein.
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 21, 2026
Saif
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…