Partly allowed

Rajesh Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2025NA528/30466/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application to quash chargesheet and cognizance in a case under Sections 323, 504 IPC, non-cognizable offences. Court held that per Explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. such a police report is a complaint, set aside the summoning order treating it as a State case, and permitted proceedings as a complaint case.

What did the court decide?

Summoning order dated 29.07.2024 treating the chargesheet as a State case set aside; court free to proceed as complaint case.

Rajesh Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30466 of 2025

¶3

Rajesh Kumar And 2 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Sudhanshu Pratap Singh : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 77

¶8

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Sudhanshu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶10

The present application has been preferred for seeking quashing of chargesheet dated 26.10.2023 and cognizance/summoning order dated 29.07.2024 along with entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.6843 of 2024 (State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and others), arising out of NCR No.83 of 2023, under Section 323, 504 IPC, P.S. Katra, District Shahjahanpur, pending in the court of learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Tilhar, Shahjahanpur.

¶11

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 applicants 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 .

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

NA528 No. 30466 of 2025

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

Explanation.- A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a noncognizable 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."

¶19

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.

¶20

In view thereof, order dated 29.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Tilhar, Shahjahanpur 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.

¶21

Accordingly, the instant application is partly allowed .

¶22

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.

¶23

November 26, 2025 Vivek Kr.

¶24

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajesh Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narendra Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Devi Prasad Rai and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Nanhey @ Nanhe vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Nisha Singh vs State of U.P.

Saurabh Alias Saurabh Pathak and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Amar Sharma and Another vs State of U.P. and Another