HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24445 of 2025 Court No. - 92 HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite party No. 1. 2. The instant application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants for quashing the charge sheet dated 04.08.2005, summoning order dated 02.01.2024 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 154 of 2020 (State vs. Kamta Prasad and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 27 of 2005, under Sections 323, 504 IPC, Police Station Meerganj, District Jaunpur pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Gram Nyayalay, Machhli Shahr, District Jaunpur. 3. Submission is that initially the applicants were summoned to face trial by summoning order dated 29.08.2025, proceedings based whereupon were challenged by filing Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 17386 of 2005 (Kamta Prasad and others vs. State of U.P. and others), in which an interim order was passed. After fourteen years, the said application was allowed on 12.12.2019 by this Court, cognizance order was set aside on the ground of non-application of mind and the matter was remanded to the concerned Magistrate. After remand, the impugned summoning order has been passed on 02.01.2024. Further submission is that the offences being non-cognizable in nature, cognizance could not be taken on charge sheet. It is further urged that even if, cognizance has been taken treating the charge sheet as complaint case, procedure prescribed for taking cognizance in such matters has not been followed, inasmuch as, no statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. has been recorded. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Narendra Deo Shukla, Vivek Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Abhayraj Mishra and 2 others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and another .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned A.G.A. submits that as per Explanation attached to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., police report in the case of non-cognizable offence shall be treated as complaint and once the Investigating Officer became complainant, as per proviso contained under Section 200 Cr.P.C., it is not necessary to record his statement. Further, there is no requirement of recording statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C and if the learned Magistrate is satisfied that sufficient ground to summon the accused exists, he was well within his power to summon the accused. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and I find that the learned Magistrate in this case after remand has applied his mind and thereafter arrived at a conclusion that offence being non-cognizable in nature, cognizance cannot be taken under Section 190 Cr.P.C. as a State case. Further, he has rightly treated it as a complaint case and directed for registration as such. As far as the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the learned Magistrate has also dealt with the proviso to Section 200 Cr.P.C. and once there was a list of witnesses attached to the charge sheet, the Court is of the view that issue of process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. does not suffer from any illegality. 6. In view of above, no interference is warranted either in the summoning order or in the impugned proceedings. 7. However, in the view of nature of allegations, it is provided that in case the applicants appear before the court below within thirty days from today and seek bail, their release be considered in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51. 8. For a period of thirty days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case. 9. With the aforesaid directions, this application under Section 528 BNSS stands disposed of. September 16, 2025 Sazia NA528 No. 24445 of 2025 2 (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAZIA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad