Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5762 of 2025 Applicant :- Shubham And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sakshi Patel,Shiv Naresh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 B.N.S.S. for quashing the impugned charge- sheet dated 03.03.2022 as well as summoning order dated 14.10.22 in N.C.R. No. 212 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, I.P.C. Police Station- Gyanpur, District- Bhadohi. Applicants have further prayed to stay the further proceedings of the Case No. 13980 of 2022 (State Versus Shubham and others) in N.C.R. No. 212 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, I.P.C. Police Station- Gyanpur, District- Bhadohi. 3. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and order proposed to be passed herein under, present applicants are hereby dispensed with from serving the notice upon opposite party No.2. 4. Solitary submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has illegally taken cognizance and issued summons u/s 323, 504 I.P.C., whereas, at the most, he could have treated the police report as a complaint, as per provisions of law enunciated under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. Record evince that O.P. No.2 has lodged an N.C.R. dated 23.09.2021, being N.C.R. No. 0212 of 2021, showing occurrence of offence dated 22.09.2021, leveling allegation of thrashing and intentional insult against the present applicant (accused). Subsequently, in pursuance of the order passed by learned Magistrate, under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet No. Nil of 2022 dated 03.03.2022. Based upon the aforesaid charge sheet, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued summons vide order dated 14.10.2022. It is next submitted that offence under both the aforesaid sections are non-cognizable and bailable, therefore, police report should have been treated as a complaint under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. For ready reference Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., with explanation, is quoted herein below: "2(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. Explanation. Explanation. - A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognisable 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;" 5. Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. denotes that report submitted by the police, after investigation, if discloses the commission of non- cognizable offence shall be deemed to be complaint and the police officer by whom such report is made, shall be deemed to be a complainant. In the matter at hand, after due investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted a police report disclosing the commission of a non-cognizable and bailable offence u/s 323 and 504 I.P.C. Therefore, learned Magistrate ought to have treated the police report as a complaint under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. and, accordingly, taken steps for institution of proceedings. 6. In this conspectus, as above, the cognizance/summoning order dated 14.10.2022 appears to have been passed in abuse of process of law; therefore, to secure the ends of justice, same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, instant application succeeds and is allowed. The impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 14.10.2022 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted before the learned Magistrate concerned to initiate a fresh proceeding being a complaint, in accordance with the provisions as enunciated under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., as discussed above. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Sumit K. Digitally signed by :- SUMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad