Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115567 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 23012 of 2025 Applicant :- Shashank Singh Alias Shashank Chandel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mayank Krishna S Chandel,Vinod Kumar Chandel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application u/s 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') has been filed seeking following relief:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to quash the prosecution of applicant in case crime no. 54 of 2025, under Sections 351(2), 352 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Mariyahu, District Jaunpur. It is further prayer this Hon'ble Court may pleased to quash the impugned order dated 16.04.2025, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First, (Court no. 12), Jaunpur in Case No. 648 of 2025 (State versus vivek Singh and another), in case crime no. 54 of 2025, under Sections 351(2), 352 of Bhartiya nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Mariyahu, District Jaunpur i.e. Annexure 1 to this accompanying affidavit. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay entire further proceeding of Case No. 648 of 2025 (State versus vivek Singh and another,) in case crime no. 54 of 2025, under Sections 351(2), 352 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Mariyahu, District Jaunpur, during the pendency of the application, under section 528 of Bharitya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 before this court. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may pleased to quash the entire criminal proceeding of Case No.648 of 2025 (State versus vivek singh and another), in case crime no. 54 of 2025, under Sections 351(2), 352 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police station Mariyahu, District Jaunpur. And / or pass such other and further order, which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case." 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in the instant matter, first information report was registered under Sections 352, 351(2) BNS, which are non-cognizable offence and matter was investigated without any permission of the court. After investigation police have submitted charge-sheet under Sections 352, 351(2) BNS, which are non-cognizable offence but cognizance has been taken as a State case. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned proceedings are abuse of the process of court and thus liable to be quashed. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and that a prima-facie case is made out against the applicant. 5. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record. 6. In the instant matter, the charge-sheet has been submitted against applicant for offence under Sections 352, 351(2) BNS. As per first schedule of BNSS, both these offences are non-cognizable. However, it may be stated that by State Notification dated 31.07.1989, the offence under Section 506 IPC was made a cognizable and non-bailable offence, if such offence is committed in State of Uttar Pradesh and validity of that notification was upheld by the Full Bench of this Court in case of Mata Sevak Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. 1995 JIC 1168. The law laid down in case of Mata Sevak Upadhyay (supra) was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Aires Rodrigues Vs. Vishwajeet P. Rane and Others; (2017) 11 SCC 62. Thus, it is settled view that offence under Section 506 IPC is a cognizable offence. As stated above, offence under Section 351(2) BNS is reincarnation of Section 506 IPC. In case of Vinay Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.13827 of 2024), decided on 03.10.2024. The Division Bench of this Court held as under:- "19. From the above analysis, it is clear that the notification dated 31.7.1989, issued in exercise of power under Section 10 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act under the first Schedule of Cr.P.C., 1973, will be deemed to be issued for amending schedule-I of the B.N.S.S. making Section 351(2) B.N.S. (corresponding Section 506 I.P.C.) as cognizable and non bailable and such notification is already saved by Section 531(2) B.N.S.S. which is pari material of Section 484 of Cr.P.C., 1973. Therefore, in the State of U.P., Section 351(2) B.N.S. will remain cognizable and non bailable in view of the notification dated 31.7.1989 which was in force at the time of repealing the Cr.P.C. by B.N.S.S." 7. Thus, from aforesaid it is clear that in view of law laid down in case of Vinay Kumar Pandey (supra), the offence under Section 351(2) BNS has to be considered as a cognizable offence. In view of these facts and circumstances, the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that offence under Section 351(2) BNS is non-cognizable offence, can not be accepted. Thus, the application u/s 528 BNSS has no force and thereafter liable to be dismissed 8. Accordingly, the application u/s 528 BNSS is dismissed. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 'SP'/- Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad