Partly allowed¶20

Bhagwat and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Nov 2025NA528/24633/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Non-cognizable offence; Sections 323 and 504 IPC; Explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C.; police report disclosing non-cognizable offence deemed complaint; charge sheet treated as complaint case; cognizance order set aside; quashing application under Section 528 BNSS; Judicial Magistrate Hasanpur District Amroha; Case no. 873 of 2025; Case Crime no. 0614 of 2024; Murli v. State of U.P.; Virendra Singh v. State of U.P.; Shakila Bano v. State of U.P.

What did the court decide?

Cognizance/summoning order dated 28.5.2025 set aside; charge sheet under Sections 323, 504 IPC to be treated and decided as a complaint case; the Magistrate may proceed with the case as a complaint case, if required, in accordance with law. ¶20

Bhagwat and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether, the offences under Sections 323, 504 IPC being non-cognizable, the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer must be treated as a complaint under the Explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., and whether the Magistrate committed legal error in taking cognizance as a State case.

¶9

Court's answer

In view of the Explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer under Sections 323, 504 IPC shall be treated as a complaint and decided as such; the learned Magistrate fell into legal error by taking cognizance as a State case, and his orders are liable to be set aside.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 28.5.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hasanpur, Amroha summoning the applicants on the basis of the chargesheet under Sections 323, 504 IPC treating the same as a State case is set aside.

¶19

Key takeaways

The setting aside shall not preclude the learned court concerned from proceeding with the case treating it as a complaint case, if required, in accordance with law.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) — Application under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of entire proceedings, charge sheet dated 21.2.2025 and cognizance order dated 28.5.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Hasanpur, District Amroha in Case no. 873 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime no. 0614 of 2024 under Sections 323, 504 IPC — offences under Sections 323, 504 IPC are non-cognizable — per the Explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., a report made by a police officer disclosing, after investigation, commission of a non-cognizable offence is deemed a complaint and the officer deemed the complainant — charge sheet therefore to be treated and decided as a complaint; the Magistrate fell into legal error by taking cognizance as a State case — cognizance/summoning order dated 28.5.2025 set aside — application partly allowed — order does not preclude the Magistrate from proceeding with the case as a complaint case in accordance with law.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24633 of 2025

¶3

Bhagwat And Another

¶4

	.	....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Sanjeev	Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 77

¶6

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶8

The present application has been preferred for seeking quashing of entire proceeding as well as charge sheet dated 21.2.2025 and cognizance order dated 28.5.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Hasanpur, District Amroha in Case no. 873 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime no. 0614 of 2024 under sections 323, 504 IPC, PS- Hasanpur, District Amroha.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicants has made only one submission before the Court that offences under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. are non-cognizable and in view of the explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., 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 Murli and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2008 (61) ACC 54, Virendra Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2002 (45) ACC 609 and Shakila Bano and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2008 (61) ACC 636.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

NA528 No. 24633 of 2025

¶13

¶14

Before proceeding further, the relevant provisions of Section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C. are being reproduced for ready reference as under:-

¶15

"2. Definitions.-In this Code, unless the context otherwise requires,-

¶16

(d) "complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.

¶17

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."

¶18

In view of the above explanation, charge sheet submitted by the concerned Investigating Officer in the present case under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. 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.

¶19

In view thereof, order dated 28.5.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Hasanpur, Amroha summoning the applicants on the basis of chargesheet submitted by concerned Investigating Officer under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. treating the same as State case, is set aside.

¶20

Accordingly, the instant application is partly allowed.

¶21

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.

¶22

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶23

November 13, 2025 Shaswat

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhagwat and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwat and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Vishal Verma @ Vikash Sharma @ Vikki and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Jamuna Prasad Verma and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyendra Chaudhari vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay vs State of U.P. and Another

Alamgir Ansari vs State of U.P. and 2 Others