MITHAI LAL AND 2 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
NA528/23746/2025 · 2025-09-24
Deepak Verma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 69669 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 69669 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 23746 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.
1. Heard Sri Jai Raj, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present 528 BNSS application has been filed to quash the Charge sheet dated 10.09.2024 and its further proceedings in Case No. 08 of 2025 and the Cognizance order dated 01.03.2025, under Sections 115(2), 352 BNS passed by Judicial Magistrate Village Court Shahganj, Police Station- Khutahan, District- Jaunpur, arising out of NCR no. 153 of 2024 (State Vs. Mithai Lal and others). 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that charged section is non-cognizable section and the learned Magistrate may pass an order taking cognizance, if he so desires, by proceeding under Chapter XVI of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Reliance has been placed to Explanation 2(h) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 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 complainant."
4. Learned A.G.A. has stated that no useful purpose would be served in issuing notice to the opposite party no.2 as it will only delay the proceedings of the present case. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brij Raj Singh, Kaushlendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mithai Lal And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)
5. Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid Explanation, which has been interpreted by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application u/s 482 No. 45609 of 2018 (Santosh Kumar and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 31.1.2019, wherein it has been held that when the charge-sheet is only of non-cognizable offence, in view of the aforesaid provision, the charge sheet should be treated as a complaint. 6. The argument of learned counsel for the applicant is well founded and the order taking cognizance is set aside. Now, the Magistrate may pass an order taking cognizance, if he so chooses, by proceeding in this matter as a complaint case under Chapter XVI of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
He can also keep in mind Proviso(a) to Section 223(1) BNSS, 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;"
7. With these observations, this application under Section 528 BNSS is finally disposed of. September 25, 2025 Aditya NA528 No. 23746 of 2025 2 (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADITYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad