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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The cognizance/summoning order dated 14.02.2025 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti, which treated the Investigating Officer's chargesheet as a State case, is set aside; the proceedings themselves are not precluded from continuing, if required, as a complaint case in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether offences under Sections 326(e), 131, 352, 352(2) of BNS being non-cognizable entails that, per the Explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of BNSS, the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer cannot proceed as a police case and must instead be proceeded with as a complaint case. +1 more

Court's answer

In view of the Explanation to Section 2(1)(h) BNSS, the charge sheet submitted by the concerned Investigating Officer in the present case under Sections 326(e), 131, 352, 352(2) of BNS shall be treated as a complaint and is to be decided as a complaint.

Ratio / Principle

The learned Magistrate fell in legal error by taking cognizance as a State case, and the orders passed by him are therefore liable to be set aside.

Key takeaways

The order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti, summoning the applicant on the basis of the chargesheet submitted by the concerned Investigating Officer under Sections 326(e), 131, 352, 352(2) of BNS treating the same as a State case, is set aside.ratio¶22
Clarificatory caveat: the setting-aside order shall not preclude the learned court concerned from proceeding with the case treating it as a complaint case, if required, in accordance with law.obiter¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal procedure - Application U/S 528 BNSS - Non-cognizable offence - Police report deemed to be a complaint - Explanation to Section 2(1)(h), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita: a police report disclosing, after investigation, commission of a non-cognizable offence is deemed a complaint with the reporting police officer deemed complainant. Chargesheet dated 24.10.2024 (Case Crime No.230 of 2024) under Sections 326(e), 131, 352, 352(2) of BNS, P.S. Lalganj, District Basti; cognizance taken on 14.02.2025 by CJM, Basti in Case No.338 of 2025 (State Vs. Laljee @ Bhajju and others) as a State case. Applicant's counsel asserted the offences are non-cognizable, so the charge sheet cannot proceed as a police case and must be proceeded with as a complaint case, relying on Murli (2008 (61) ACC 54), Virendra Singh (2002 (45) ACC 609) and Shakila Bano (2008 (61) ACC 636); AGA did not dispute. Court reproduced Section 2(1)(h) BNSS with its Explanation, held that in view of the Explanation the charge sheet shall be treated and decided as a complaint, that the Magistrate fell in legal error in taking cognizance as a State case, and accordingly set aside the summoning/cognizance order dated 14.02.2025. Application partly allowed; proceedings not precluded from being proceeded with as a complaint case, if required, in accordance with law. Judge: Saurabh Srivastava, J.; decision dated November 17, 2025.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 31439 of 2025

Sant Ram Yadav

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Rajendra Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 77

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Sri Rajendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

The present application has been preferred for seeking quashing of chargesheet dated 24.10.2024 and cognizance/order dated 14.02.2025 along with entire proceedings of Case No.338 of 2025 (State Vs. Laljee @ Bhajju and others), arising out of Case Crime No.230 of 2024, under Section 326(e), 131, 352, 352(2) of BNS, P.S. Lalganj, District Basti, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti.

Learned counsel for applicant has made only one submission before the Court that offences under Sections 326(e), 131, 352, 352(2) of BNS are noncognizable and in view of the explanation to Section 2(1)(h) of 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 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 .

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

Before proceeding further, the relevant provisions of Section 2(1)(h) of

NA528 No. 31439 of 2025

2

BNSS are being reproduced for ready reference as under:-

"2. Definitions.-(1) 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."

In view of the above explanation, charge sheet submitted by the concerned Investigating Officer in the present case under Sections 326(e), 131, 352, 352(2) of 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.

In view thereof, order dated 14.02.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti summoning the applicant on the basis of chargesheet submitted by concerned Investigating Officer under Sections 326(e), 131, 352, 352(2) of BNS treating the same as State case, is set aside.

Accordingly, the instant application is partly allowed .

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.

November 17, 2025 Vivek Kr.

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

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