Allahabad High Court
Shikha Bansal And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 November, 2025
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:208339
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 31890 of 2025
Shikha Bansal And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Neetu Singh, Nishant Kumar, Prashant Kumar Bhardwaj
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Shekhar Gangal
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri Prashant Kumar Bhardwaj, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Shekhar Gangal, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for State.
2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash cognizance order dated 16.01.2025 under Section 318(4) BNS and entire proceeding in Case no. 12/2025 (State vs. Shikha Bansal and others) pending in court of Judicial Magistrate, Khair, District Aligarh arising out of FIR no. 268 of 2024 registered at Police Station Khair, District Aligarh under sections 384, 406, 323, 504 IPC, PS- Khair, District Aligarh.
3. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that applicant no. 1 namely Shikha Bansal is the wife of opposite party no. 2/informant. Applicant nos. 2 and 3 (namely Krishnakant Bansal @ Kanha and Anuj Bansal respectively) are brothers of applicant no. 1. Present FIR has been lodged at the behest of opposite party no. 2 against applicants alleging therein that applicant no. 1 escaped from her in-laws house with ornaments on dated 14.01.2024. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet dated 21.08.2024 has been submitted against applicant no. 1 in pursuance to sections 406, 323, 504 IPC and against applicant nos. 2 and 3 in pursuance to sections 323, 504 IPC. However, learned Magistrate concerned took cognizance of offence against all the applicants in pursuance to sections 406, 323, 504 IPC vide impugned order dated 16.01.2025.
4. Learned counsel for applicants has made only one submission before the Court that offences under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. are non-cognizable and in view of the explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., 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 applicant 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.
5. Although, Sri Shekhar Gangal, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for State opposed the prayer sought through the instant application but did not dispute the submissions so made by learned counsel for applicant.
6. Before proceeding further, the relevant provisions of Section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C. are being reproduced for ready reference as under:-
"2. Definitions.-In this Code, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(d) "complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, 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."
7. In view of the above explanation, charge sheet submitted by the concerned Investigating Officer in the present case only against applicant nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. 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 in respect of applicant nos. 2 and 3 is, therefore, liable to be set aside.
8. In view thereof, order dated 16.01.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Khair, Aligarh summoning the applicant nos. 2 and 3 on the basis of charge sheet submitted by concerned Investigating Officer under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. treating the same as State case, is set aside only in respect of applicant nos. 2 and 3 namely Krishnakant Bansal @ Kanha and Anuj Bansal respectively. It is made clear that this order shall not preclude the learned court concerned to proceed with the case treating it as complaint case in respect of applicant nos. 2 and 3, if required, in accordance with law.
9. However, so far as applicant no. 1 is concerned, on perusal of the narration of FIR as well as impugned order and chargesheet, this Court does not find it to be a case where interference of this Court is required. No such ground appears to be available in the present application, on the basis of which, impugned order along with chargesheet, can be set aside. Accordingly, the prayer sought through the instant application in respect of applicant no. 1, is refused. Applicant no. 1 is directed to appear before learned court concerned in pursuance to impugned summoning order dated 16.01.2025 within a period of three weeks from today. Till three weeks from today, no coercive action shall be initiated against applicant no. 1.
10. Accordingly, the instant application is disposed of.
11. It is made clear, all the applicants will be at liberty to avail all other remedy available at law.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
November 19, 2025
Shaswat
