Allahabad High Court
HARENDRA CHAURASIYA AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MADAN PAL SINGH
Holding
A police report that, after investigation, discloses only a non‑cognizable offence is deemed a complaint under the Explanation to Section 2(d) of the CrPC, and therefore the magistrate’s order taking cognizance as a State case is invalid and must be quashed.
Summary
The applicants filed a Section 528 CrPC application seeking to quash the charge‑sheet, cognizance order and proceedings in a case under Sections 323 and 504 IPC, alleging that these offences are non‑cognizable. They argued that, per the Explanation to Section 2(d) of the CrPC, a police report disclosing only a non‑cognizable offence must be treated as a complaint, not as a State case. The court accepted that the offences are indeed non‑cognizable and that the Explanation makes the police report a complaint. Consequently, the magistrate’s order taking cognizance as a State case was held illegal. The court allowed the application in part, directing that the police report be treated as a complaint and the cognizance order be quashed, with the matter to be re‑proceeded under complaint procedure.
Issues considered
- Whether a police report disclosing a non‑cognizable offence is deemed a complaint under the Explanation to Section 2(d) of the CrPC.
- Whether a magistrate can take cognizance of such a report as a State case.
- Whether the charge‑sheet and cognizance order can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 2(d), 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 504
Subjects
- non-cognizable offence
- police report as complaint
- Section 528 CrPC
- Section 2(d) CrPC
- quashing of criminal proceedings
- cognizance
- complaint procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 45255 of 2025
Harendra Chaurasiya And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Piyush Patel, Pradeep Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 81
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the
State.Since the present case involves a pure question of law, no notice
is required to be issued to opposite party no. 2.
2. The present application has been filed by the applicants seeking
quashing of the charge-sheet dated 27.11.2013, the
summoning/cognizance order dated 22.04.2014, as well as the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1550 of 2014 (State Vs. Harendra
Chaurasiya & Ors.), arising out of N.C.R. No. 593 of 2013, under
Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District
Maharajganj, pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Maharajganj.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the offences punishable
under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. are non-cognizable offences.
Therefore, in view of the Explanation to Section 2(d) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the police report could not have been treated as a
police report in a State case and was required to be treated as a
complaint. It is contended that the learned Magistrate has illegally
registered the case as a State case and taken cognizance accordingly.
4. It is not disputed that the offences under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C.
are non-cognizable offences.
5. The Explanation to Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
provides as follows:
NA528 No. 45255 of 2025
2
"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. A plain reading of the aforesaid Explanation makes it clear that where,
after investigation, a police report discloses only the commission of a
non-cognizable offence, such report is deemed to be a complaint and
the police officer submitting the report is deemed to be the
complainant. Consequently, the procedure prescribed for complaint
cases is required to be followed.
7. In the present case, the material on record indicates that the charge-
sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer, instead of being treated as
a complaint, has been treated as a State case by the learned Magistrate,
which is not permissible in law.
8. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the applicants.
9. Having considered the rival submissions, perused the material on
record, and examined the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, this Court finds merit in the submissions advanced on
behalf of the applicants.
10. Accordingly, the present application is allowed in part.
11. It is directed that the police report shall be treated as a complaint in
terms of the Explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., and the court
concerned shall proceed with the matter in accordance with the
procedure prescribed for complaint cases.
12. Consequently, the order taking cognizance of the case as a State case is
quashed. The Magistrate concerned shall proceed afresh in accordance
with law by treating the police report as a complaint and by following
the procedure applicable to complaint cases.
September 23, 2026
Akbar
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD AKBAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…