HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 45255 of 2025 Court No. - 81 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.Since the present case involves a pure question of law, no notice is required to be issued to opposite party no. 2. 1. The present application has been filed by the applicants seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 27.11.2013, the summoning/cognizance order dated 22.04.2014, as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1550 of 2014 (State Vs. Harendra Chaurasiya & Ors.), arising out of N.C.R. No. 593 of 2013, under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Maharajganj, pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. are non-cognizable offences. Therefore, in view of the Explanation to Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the police report could not have been treated as a police report in a State case and was required to be treated as a complaint. It is contended that the learned Magistrate has illegally registered the case as a State case and taken cognizance accordingly. 3. It is not disputed that the offences under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. are non-cognizable offences. 4. The Explanation to Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides as follows: 5. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Piyush Patel, Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Harendra Chaurasiya And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) "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." A plain reading of the aforesaid Explanation makes it clear that where, after investigation, a police report discloses only the commission of a non-cognizable offence, such report is deemed to be a complaint and the police officer submitting the report is deemed to be the complainant. Consequently, the procedure prescribed for complaint cases is required to be followed. 6. In the present case, the material on record indicates that the charge- sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer, instead of being treated as a complaint, has been treated as a State case by the learned Magistrate, which is not permissible in law. 7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants. 8. Having considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record, and examined the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court finds merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants. 9. Accordingly, the present application is allowed in part. 10. It is directed that the police report shall be treated as a complaint in terms of the Explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., and the court concerned shall proceed with the matter in accordance with the procedure prescribed for complaint cases. 11. Consequently, the order taking cognizance of the case as a State case is quashed. The Magistrate concerned shall proceed afresh in accordance with law by treating the police report as a complaint and by following the procedure applicable to complaint cases. 12. September 23, 2026 Akbar NA528 No. 45255 of 2025 2 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad