Allahabad High Court
FARHAN AHMAD AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The charge sheet for the non‑cognizable offences must be treated as a complaint, and the magistrate’s cognizance order is set aside.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash a charge sheet dated 01‑08‑2025 and a cognizance order dated 14‑07‑2026 in a case arising under Sections 115(2), 351(3) and 352 of the BNS. The sole contention was that these offences are non‑cognizable and, per 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 State did not contest this legal submission. The Court examined the definition and explanation in Section 2(1)(h) BNSS and held that the charge sheet indeed amounts to a complaint. Consequently, the magistrate’s order taking cognizance as a State case was held to be a legal error and was set aside. The application was partly allowed, with the clarification that the case may proceed as a complaint if required.
Issues considered
- Whether offences under Sections 115(2), 351(3) and 352 BNS are cognizable.
- Whether a police report/charge sheet relating to a non‑cognizable offence is deemed a complaint under Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS.
- Whether the cognizance order passed by the magistrate can be set aside on the ground that the charge sheet should be treated as a complaint.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- non‑cognizable offence
- charge sheet
- complaint
- Section 528 application
- quash order
- BNSS
- magistrate cognizance
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41329 of 2026
Farhan Ahmad And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohammad Alam
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 01.08.2025 and cognizance order dated 14.07.2026 passed in
Case no. 421 of 2026 (State vs. Farhan Ahmad and others) arising out of
Case Crime no. 82 of 2025 under sections 115(2), 351(3), 352 BNS, PS-
Bakewar, District Etawah.
3. Learned counsel for applicant has made only one submission before the
Court that offences under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352 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 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. Since only legal arguments have been raised at the behest of applicants,
process to issue notice to opposite party no. 2 is hereby dispensed with.
6. Before proceeding further, the relevant provisions of Section 2(1)(h)
NA528 No. 41329 of 2026
2
BNSS are being reproduced for ready reference as under:-
"2. Definitions.-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 Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352
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.
8. In view thereof, order dated 14.7.2026 passed by learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 4, Etawah summoning the applicants on the
basis of chargesheet submitted by concerned Investigating Officer under
Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352 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.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
September 28, 2026
Shaswat
Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…