HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39514 of 2026 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State. 2. The present application has been preferred for seeking quashing of cognizance/summoning order dated 29.03.2025 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.202 of 2025 (State vs. Ram Raj Yadav and others) arising out of Case Crime No.245 of 2024, under Sections 324(5), 351(3) BNS, P.S. Madihan, District Mirzapur, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mirzapur. 3. Learned counsel for applicants has made only one submission before the Court that offences under Sections 324(5), 351(3) BNS are non-cognizable and in view of the explanation to Section 2(1)h BNSS, the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer concerned cannot proceed as a police case and the same is liable to be proceeded with as a complaint case. In support of his submission, learned counsel of applicants has placed reliance upon the judgments passed in the case of Murli and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2008 (61) ACC 54; Virendra Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2002 (45) ACC 609 and Shakila Bano and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2008 (61) ACC 636. 4. Although, learned AGA opposed the prayer sought through the instant application but did not dispute the submissions so made by learned counsel for applicants. 5. Before proceeding further, the relevant provisions of Section 2(1)h BNSS are being reproduced for ready reference as under:- "2. Definitions.- (1) In this Sanhita, unless the context otherwise requires,- Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ramraj Yadav Alias Raja Ram Yadav And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) (h) "complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Sanhita, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. 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." 6. In view of the above explanation, charge sheet submitted by the concerned Investigating Officer in the present case under Sections 324(5), 351(3) BNS shall be treated as complaint and it is to be decided as complaint and the learned Magistrate fell in legal error by taking cognizance as State case and the orders passed by him is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 7. Since the legal issue has been raised by learned counsel for the applicants and as such process to issue notice to opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed with. 8. In view thereof, cognizance/summoning order dated 29.03.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mirzapur against the applicants on the basis of charge-sheet submitted by concerned Investigating Officer under Sections 324(5), 351(3) BNS treating the same as State case, is set aside. 9. Accordingly, the instant application is partly allowed. 10. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the learned court concerned to proceed with the case treating it as complaint case, if required, in accordance with law. September 17, 2026 Ashish/- NA528 No. 39514 of 2026 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad