Partly allowed¶22

Sneha v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 May 2026NA528/14378/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application u/S 528 BNSS quashing — non-cognizable offences under Sections 352, 115(2), 351(3) BNS — Explanation to Section 2(1)(h) BNSS: police report disclosing non-cognizable offence deemed complaint, officer deemed complainant — charge-sheet treated as complaint — Magistrate erred taking cognizance as State case — cognizance/summoning order dated 16.05.2025 (ACJM, Court No.03, Meerut) set aside — Case Crime No.205 of 2024, P.S. Rohta, Meerut — application partly allowed; proceedings may continue as complaint case.

What did the court decide?

Cognizance/summoning order dated 16.05.2025 set aside; charge-sheet to be treated as a complaint; notice to opposite party no.2 dispensed with; liberty left to the concerned court to proceed as a complaint case in accordance with law. ¶22

Sneha vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether, where the offences alleged (Sections 352, 115(2), 351(3) BNS) are non-cognizable, the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer can proceed as a police/State case, or whether, in view of the Explanation to Section 2(1)(h) BNSS, it must be dealt with as a complaint case.

¶11

Court's answer

In view of the Explanation to Section 2(1)(h) BNSS, the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer in the present case under Sections 352, 115(2), 351(3) BNS shall be treated as a complaint and decided as a complaint case.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

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

¶19

Key takeaways

The cognizance/summoning order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut against the applicant on the basis of the charge-sheet, treating the same as a State case, is set aside.ratio¶21
The setting aside shall not preclude the learned court concerned from proceeding with the case as a complaint case, if required, in accordance with law.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Saurabh Srivastava, J.), Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 14378 of 2026, Sneha v. State of U.P. and Another, decided May 7, 2026 — Quashing of charge-sheet dated 15.01.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 16.05.2025 in Case No.21522 of 2025 (State Vs. Sneha), arising out of Case Crime No.205 of 2024, under Sections 352, 115(2), 351(3) BNS, P.S. Rohta, District Meerut. HELD: the offences are non-cognizable; under the Explanation to Section 2(1)(h) BNSS a police report disclosing, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence is deemed a complaint and the police officer deemed the complainant; the Magistrate fell into legal error by taking cognizance as a State case; the cognizance/summoning order was set aside and the application partly allowed, with liberty to the court below to proceed as a complaint case in accordance with law. Counsel relied on Murli (2008 (61) ACC 54), Virendra Singh (2002 (45) ACC 609) and Shakila Bano (2008 (61) ACC 636); the Court disposed of the matter on the statutory Explanation without independently discussing these precedents.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14378 of 2026

Sneha

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 77

¶8

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶9

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

¶10

The present application has been preferred for seeking quashing of charge-sheet dated 15.01.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 16.05.2025 along with entire proceedings of Case No.21522 of 2025, (State Vs. Sneha) arising out of Case Crime No.205 of 2024, under Sections 352, 115(2), 351(3) BNS, P.S. Rohta, District Meerut, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.03, Meerut.

¶11

Learned counsel for applicant has made only one submission before the Court that offences under Sections 352, 115(2), 351(3) BNS are noncognizable and in view of the explanation to Section 2(1)h 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 .

¶12

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

¶13

Before proceeding further, the relevant provisions of Section 2(1)h BNSS are being reproduced for ready reference as under:-

¶14

NA528 No. 14378 of 2026

¶15

¶16

"2. Definitions.- (1) In this Sanhita, unless the context otherwise requires,-

¶17

(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.

¶18

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."

¶19

In view of the above explanation, charge sheet submitted by the concerned Investigating Officer in the present case under Sections 352, 115(2), 351(3) 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.

¶20

Since the legal issue has been raised by learned counsel for the applicant and as such process to issue notice to opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed with.

¶21

In view thereof, cognizance/summoning order dated 16.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut against the applicant on the basis of charge-sheet submitted by concerned Investigating Officer under Sections 352, 115(2), 351(3) BNS treating the same as State case, is set aside.

¶22

Accordingly, the instant application is partly allowed .

¶23

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.

¶24

May 7, 2026 Ashish/-

¶25

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶26

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

Sneha v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sneha 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sharad Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Nikhil Mittal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikas Sharma Urf Vishal Urf Vikki Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Lucky vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another