Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35906 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 4595 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Ranjana Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lalji Yadav,Yashpal Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Yashpal Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Sharma, State Law Officer for the State. 2. Sri Vikas Sharma, State Law Officer has submitted that since a legal question has been involved in the application, thus, the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the application be decided at the fresh stage. 3. This application U/s 528 of BNSS has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 05.07.2023, cognizance order dated 20.10.2023 and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 29558/2023 (State Vs. Ranjana) arising out of NCR No. 71/2022 under Sections, 323, 504 IPC, P.S. Shivli, District Kanpur Dehar, pending in the Court of CJM, Kanpur Dehat. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that an NCR stood lodged being 026 on 03.04.2022 relatable to the commission of offences on 02.04.2022 under Sections 323, 504 of the IPC against the applicant. Thereafter, a charge sheet came to be submitted and a summoning order came to be passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat on 20.10.2023. Submission is that the proceedings so sought to be lodged against the applicant is not maintainable particularly when offences under Sections 323, 504 are non cognizable. Thus, in view of the provisions contained under Section 2(d) further read with Section 198(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., the case is to be proceeded as complaint case and not a State case. He submits that a charge sheet No. 71 of 2022 has been submitted which is not permissible under law. He seeks to rely upon the decision in the case of Rama Shankar Upadhayay and three others vs. State of U.P. and another: Application U/s 482 No. 32219 of 2022 decided on 14.11.2022. 5. Learned AGA, on the other hand, does not dispute the said fact that the offences under Section 323, 504 are non cognizable offences, thus, they are covered under the provisions of Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. and the case is to be treated as complaint case rather than a State case. 6. Having heard the submissions made across the bar, it is apparent that NCR stood lodged against the applicant under Sections 323, 504 IPC and the charge sheet stood submitted under Sections 323 and 504 and summons have been issued by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat on 20.10.2023 under Section 323, 504 IPC. Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. defines a complaint which means an allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, for taking action under the Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, had committed an offence, but does not include a police report. Explanation to Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. itself defines that a report made by the Police Officer after investigation, the commission of non-cognizable offences shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the Police Officer by whom such complaint is made shall be deemed to be the complaint. 7. In the present case, once the NCR was under Section 323, 504 which was also submitted under Sections 323, 504 and summons have been issued under Section 323, 504 which are non cognizable, thus, the procedure as envisaged under Section 190(1) (a) is to be proceeded with. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rama Shankar Upadhayay (supra) has also taken the same view that in the cases of submission of charge sheet under non cognizable offences then the case is to be proceeded as complaint case and not State case. Therefore, in view of the settled position of law, the order of taking cognizance is set aside, the trial court shall proceed with the case as complaint case under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal procedure. 8. In view of the above, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad