Shivsharan Singh Alias Badkauna and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Shivsharan Singh Alias Badkauna and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The cognizance/summoning order dated 19.10.2024 passed by the C.J.M., Banda was set aside; the Magistrate was left free to take cognizance afresh, if he so chooses, by treating the matter as a complaint case under Chapter XV Cr.P.C., bearing in mind proviso (a) to Section 200 Cr.P.C. The application was finally disposed of with these observations.

Issue for consideration

Whether the cognizance/summoning order dated 19.10.2024 passed by the C.J.M., Banda directly on charge sheet no. 144 of 2024 - which disclosed only non-cognizable offences (Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.) and was submitted without permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. - could stand, or whether such a charge sheet must be treated as a complaint in terms of the Explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C.

Ratio / Principle

Finding well founded the contention that a police charge sheet disclosing only non-cognizable offences falls to be treated as a complaint in terms of the Explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. (as interpreted in the Single Judge decision in Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma), this Court set aside the order taking cognizance/summoning.

Key takeaways

The learned Magistrate may, if he so chooses, now pass an order taking cognizance by proceeding in the matter as a complaint case under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure.ratio¶16
While proceeding as a complaint case, the Magistrate may also keep in mind that in view of proviso (a) to Section 200 Cr.P.C., where a public servant acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duties, or a Court, has made the complaint in writing, he need not examine the complainant and the witnesses.obiter¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing application (registered as APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 3381 of 2025; described in the body as filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) - Applicants Shivsharan Singh @ Badkauna and another sought quashing of the entire proceedings in Case no. 2931/IX/2024 arising out of Case Crime no. 125/2024 under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. (non-cognizable offences), P.S. Tindwari, District Banda, on charge sheet no. 144 of 2024 dated 18.08.2024 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 19.10.2024 passed by the C.J.M., Banda, contending that no permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. had been obtained for investigation of a non-cognizable offence. Applying the Explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. (a police report disclosing, after investigation, commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed a complaint, and the officer making the report deemed the complainant), as interpreted in a Single Judge decision of this Court reported at 2007 (3) JIC 654 (All); 2007 (9) ADJ 478 (Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and another), Hon'ble Tej Pratap Tiwari, J. held the contention well founded, set aside the order taking cognizance/summoning, and directed that the Magistrate may, if he so chooses, take cognizance by proceeding as a complaint case under Chapter XV Cr.P.C., keeping in mind proviso (a) to Section 200 Cr.P.C. (where a public servant acting in discharge of official duties, or a Court, has made the written complaint, examination of the complainant and witnesses may be dispensed with). Application finally disposed of on October 9, 2025. Counsel-relied precedents at 2009(64) ACC 296 (M/s Eicher Tractor Ltd. v. Harihar Singh) and 2008 (1) JIC 220 (All) (Awdesh Kumar v. State of U.P.) were listed but not engaged with by the Court.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 3381 of 2025

Shivsharan Singh Alias Badkauna And Another

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

Court No. - 82

HON'BLE TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J.

Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash entire proceeding of Case no. 2931/IX/2024 (State versus Shivsharan Singh @ Badkauna and another), arising out of Case Crime no. 125/2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Tindwari, District Banda, charge sheet no. 144 of 2024 dated 18.08.2024 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 19.10.2024 pending before the learned C.J.M., Banda.

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that charged Sections are bailable Sections and the learned Magistrate may pass an order taking cognizance if he so desires by proceeding under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further argued that the order impugned has been challenged and reliance has been placed to explanation 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is argued that no permission was taken under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. and charge sheet has been submitted in non cognizable offence. Learned Counsel has relied upon a Judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009(64) ACC 296 M/s Eicher Tractor Ltd. and others Vs. Harihar Singh and another as well as another reported Judgement of this Court reported in 2008 (1) JIC 220 (All) Awdesh Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others in support of his contention.

Learned A.G.A. has stated that no useful purpose would be served in

NA528 No. 3381 of 2025

2

issuing notice to the opposite party no. 2 as it will only delay the proceedings of the present case.

The order taking cognizance has been passed and it is argued that charge sheet has been submitted under the charged sections which are non cognizable offence. Reliance has been place on Explanation to Section 2(d) of Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as follows:-

"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 complaint."

Therefore, on the basis of Explanation which has been interpreted in a Single Judge decision of this Court reported in 2007 (3) JIC 654 (All); 2007 (9) ADJ 478 Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and another, it has been held that when the charge sheet is only of non cognizable offences, in view of the aforesaid provision, the charge sheet should be treated as a complaint. The argument is well founded and the order taking cognizance/summoning is set aside. Now the Magistrate may pass an order taking cognizance if, he so chooses, by proceedings in this matter as a complaint case under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He can also keep this fact in mind that in view of the proviso (a) to Section 200 Cr.P.C., which reads as follows:-

"Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses--

(a) If a public servant acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint;"

With these observations, this application is finally disposed of.

(Tej Pratap Tiwari,J.)

October 9, 2025 PS

Digitally signed by :- POOJA SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad