# Ravindra Pratap v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 854
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-06
- **Case number:** Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 872 of 2026
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravindra-pratap-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54481
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

854 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
it as to ensure that there is an expeditious and proper disposal of cases by such Magistrate. There is no
question of expeditious disposal of any pending matter, as the case already stands decided. With regard to
the exercise of superintendence for the proper disposal of cases, proceeding on the assumption that the
supervisory power is both judicial and administrative, it is apparent that it can be exercised only over
Judicial Magistrate and not Executive Magistrates. Under Section 6 of the Code, Executive Magistrates
constitute a class of criminal Courts different from the class of criminal Courts manned by the Judicial
Magistrates. Sections 11 to 15 deal with Judicial Magistrates, while Executive Magistrates have been dealt
with by Section 20 to 23. Proceedings under Section 145 lie within the jurisdiction of Executive Magistrates
and not judicial Magistrates. The impugned order was passed by an Executive Magistrate and there is thus
no supervisory power to correct a mistake committed by such a Magistrate."

11. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Allahabad in the case of Manoj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of
UP and 5 Others, 2025:AHC:88381 has observed as under :

 "17. The aforesaid definition clearly provides a distinction between the Judicial Magistrates and
Executive Magistrates and since the provisions of Section 483 Cr.P.C.(Section 529 of BNSS) have been made
applicable to Judicial Magistrates, they are not applicable to the orders passed by an Executive Magistrate,
hence relying upon the aforesaid provisions and case laws, it can be safely concluded that the High Court
under Section 529 BNSS (Section 483 Cr.P.C.) is not required to make any superintendence over the
working of a Executive Magistrate and no direction under Section 483 Cr.P.C. (Section 529 of BNSS) can be
issued to the Executive Magistrates where a case under Section 133 Cr.P.C. is pending before it like the
present one as prescribed in Section 483 Cr.P.C.(Section 529 of BNSS)."

12. After going through the order dated 07.04.2026 passed in case UNDER ARTICLE 227
No.1709 of 2026 and the judgments rendered in Sarjoo (Supra) and Manoj Kumar Yadav (Supra), this
Court finds that there is contradictory opinion which requires consideration by a larger Bench. Therefore, I
am of the considered opinion that the matter should be placed before the Hon?ble Chief Justice for referring
the matter to a larger Bench for consideration of the following issue: "Whether while exercising the power
conferred under Section 529 BNSS/Section 483 CrPC, the High Court can direct an "Executive Magistrate"
for expeditious disposal of the cases or the remedy lies under Article 227 of Constitution of India?"

13. The record shall be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench of
such strength, as his Lordship deems fit, for determination of the issue.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 854
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.04.2026

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 872 of 2026

Ravindra Pratap ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties
4 All. Ravindra Pratap Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
855
Issue for consideration
The applicant challenged the charge-sheet and summoning order passed in an NCR case under Sections
115(2) and 352 BNS, contending that the NCR was lodged as a retaliatory measure after he had earlier
initiated criminal proceedings against the complainant.

Headnotes
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS),2023-Sections 115(2), 352-Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita
(BNSS), 2023-Section 528, 174(2) & 2((1)(h)-NCR Investigation-Investigation on Magistrate's
Order-Police report disclosing Non-Cognizable offence-Deemed complaint-Section 2(1)(h) BNSSComplaint Case Procedure Mandatory-Cognizance as Police Case Impermissible-Summoning
Order Illegal-Set aside.(Para 9 to 17)
Held
The court ruled that a police report submitted after investigation of an NCR, which discloses only noncognizable offences, is deemed to be a complaint under section 2(1)(h) BNSS; therefore, the Magistrate must
proceed in accordance with the procedure applicable to complaint cases and not as a police case. The
application allowed. (E-6)

List of Acts
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS),2023, Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

List of Keywords
NCR, Police investigation, Magistrate's order, Deemed complaint, Summoning order, Cognizance, Jurisdictional
error.

Case Arising from
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No.- 872 OF 2026
Ravindra Pratap Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
From the judgment and order dated 06.04.2026 of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for Applicant(s)
Ravi Shankar Mishra
Adv. for Opposite Party(s)
G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Ravi Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Aniruddha Kumar
Singh, learned AGA-I and Mr. Bhaskar Mall, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

2. Notice to opposite party no. 2 is hereby dispensed with, as this Court is deciding the
legal issue, at the admission stage.

3. The present application has been preferred for quashing the chargesheet no. NIL/2025,
dated 10.01.2026, under sections 115(2) and 352 B.N.S.(Old sections- 323, 504 of IPC), Police
Station- Sangrampur District Amethi, as well as the summoning order dated 27.01.2026, in Crl.
Case No. 55 of 2026 arising out of N.C.R. no. 02 of 2025, under sections 115(2) and 352 B.N.S.
(Old Sections- 323 and 504 of IPC).
856 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4. The submission of learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that the applicant is
innocent and has falsely implicated. He submits that initially the applicant lodged the first
information report, on 27/11/2024, against the complainant and other co-accused persons, namely
Vimla, Brijesh, and Mannu, which was registered as case crime number 0208/2024, under sections
131, 351(3) and 352 of B.N.S.S., Police Station Sangrampur District Amethi and in retaliation, a
frivolous complaint was moved by the opposite party no. 2, on 12.12.2024, thereafter, the present
false and concocted non-cognizable report dated 30/04/2025, has been registered, as NCR No. 02
of 2025, under sections 115(2) and 352 B.N.S (old Sections- 323 and 504), of IPC, at Police Station
Sangrampur District Amethi and the investigating officer, without conducting fair and proper
investigation, filed the chargesheet, on 10.01.2026 and the Magistrate has also taken cognizance
and summoned the applicant, vide the summoning order dated 27/01/2026, in an unlawful and
erroneous manner.

5. He argued that in fact the chargesheet could not have been filed against the applicant and
even if that has been filed, the Magistrate should not have proceeded with the matter, a police case,
as after the investigation, the chargesheet was filed under sections 115(2) and 352 B.N.S (sections-
323 and 504 of IPC), which are non-cognizable offences. He added that as per the provision
prescribed under section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., corresponding to section 2(1)(h) of BNSS, the matter
could be treated as a complaint case and the procedure should be followed by the trial court, as
prescribed for, in the complaint cases. He further submitted that since the learned trial court has
proceeded unlawfully, therefore, the whole proceeding vitiates in the eyes of law.

6. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the contentions
aforesaid. He submits that there is no fault on the part of the police as after receiving the direction
of the Magistrate, the police proceeded in the matter for investigation and the charge sheet has been
filed.

7. Upon considering the submissions of counsel for the parties and after perusal of the
record, it is apparent that initially the criminal prosecution was instituted between the parties and
once the final report was submitted, again an NCR was registered bearing NCR No. 02 of 2025,
under sections 115(2) and 352 B.N.S (323 & 504 of I.P.C.), thereafter, the learned trial court
proceeded and directed the police to investigate into the matter and the chargesheet was filed by the
Police and the cognizance has been taken by the trial court under sections 115(2) and 352 of BNSS,
while summoning the applicant for the aforesaid offenses.

8. When this Court examines the matter, it emerges that the charge sheet which was filed
by the investigating officer, was considered by the trial court and cognizance has been taken,
though, the chargesheet has been filed under sections 115(2) and 352 B.N.S. The matter was
proceeded, on an NCR, instituted by the opposite party no. 2 and the trial court, while invoking the
powers under section 174(2) of BNSS directed the police for investigation into the matter.

9. The provisions of section 174 (2) BNSS[155(2) of Cr.P.C.] reads as under:-

 "(2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a
Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial."
4 All. Ravindra Pratap Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
857
10. Having perused the aforesaid provision, it reveals that once an NCR is registered, the
recourse is provided under aforenoted provision. After filing of the NCR, it shall be entered into the
book, kept for and the informant shall be referred to the Magistrate having the jurisdiction. In the
present case, as soon as the NCR was registered, the information was referred to the Magistrate,
whereafter, the direction was given for investigation into the matter by the Police and the police
submitted its report, while coming to the conclusion that the offense under sections 115(2) and 352
of B.N.S.S is made out.

11. This Court is aware of the provision of section 2 (1)(h) of B.N.S.S., which reads as
under:-

 "2(1)(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;"

12. The aforesaid provision provides that what would mean by 'complaint' and it is said that
the 'complaint' means, any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with view of taking
action, under this code, but does not include a police report and in explanation clause, it finds
mention that a report made by a police officer, in a case, which discloses after investigation, the
commission of non-cognizable offence, shall be deemed to be a complaint and the police officer
shall be deemed to be the complainant.

13. Having the joint reading of the provisions of section 174(2) of B.N.S.S., with section
2(i)(h) of B.N.S.S., it emerges that as soon as, an NCR is lodged, the same would be registered and
the matter would be referred by the police to the Magistrate concerned and such Magistrate shall, if
so desire, on the basis of the evidences, direct the police to make an investigation and on receiving
the police report, may exercise its power, in the matter of cognizable offenses. The explanation of
section 2 (1)(h) is very clear in its terms, that, if such police report, after investigation is filed and
discloses the commission of a non-cognizable offense, that shall be deemed to be a complaint.
Meaning thereby that the Magistrate is empowered to direct for investigation by the Police, on
receiving a non-cognizable report and if it is found, after the investigation that matter is one of
cognizable offence, the Magistrate has all power to proceed in the matter as of a cognizable
offenses, but, after the investigation, if the police filed a report of commission of a non-cognizable
offense, then the bar of provisions of section 2 (1)(h) will come into play and in that circumstances,
the matter will run as a complaint case and in that event, such report shall be treated as a complaint
and the report made by the Police shall be treated as the complainant.

14. In the instant case, it is of worth consideration that after lodging of the NCR, the
investigation was conducted, on the order passed by the trial court and the police submitted its
report, under Section 115(2) and 352 of B.N.S.S. The aforenoted offences disclose the commission
858 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of non-cognizable offense. I am of the considered opinion that the case of the present applicant is
covered with the explanation clause of Section 2(1)(h) of BNSS.

15. It is apt to say here that the learned trial court while passing the order impugned herein,
has traveled beyond the provisions of law.

16. Consequently, the summoning order dated 27.01.2026 is unsustainable, therefore, the
same is hereby set-aside.

17. The application is hereby allowed accordingly.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 858
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 1424 of 2026

Surendra Singh Ex Army ...Applicant
Versus
C.B.I. Lko ...Opposite Party

Issue for consideration
The applicant an ex-army personnel, approached the High court u/s 482 CrPC seeking the quashing of a
charge-sheet dated 23.05.2016 and challenging the validity of a prosecution sanction order dated 11.05.2016.
The criminal proceedings arose out of RC No. 0006/2015/A/0003 involving offences under the IPC, the
Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, and the Information Technology Act,2000.

Headnotes
A. Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections, 120-B, 201, 409, 420, 460, 468, 471, 477-Criminal
Procedure Code,1973-Section 482-Prevention of Corruption Act,1988-Section 13(1)(d), 13(2)-
Information Technology Act,2000-Sections 65,66-Challenge to validity of prosecution sanctionDismissal on ground of laches and Maintainability-Absence of Sanction vs. Invalidity of sanctionPre-trial/In progress stage challenge-Total absence of sanction can be agitated at the inception,
but any challenge to the validity of an existing sanction must be raised and examined during
course of the trial-Delay and laches-Discretionary petition u/s482 CrPC filed after an
unexplained delay of nearly a decade (10 years) from the date of the sanction order cannot be
entertained when the trial is actively in progress-Petition dismissed.(Para 10 to 13)
Held
The court ruled that where a sanction order actually exists, any disputation regarding its legal validity nonapplication of mind, or lack of authority is an issue of evidence to be raised strictly during the trial. The court
cannot exercise its discretionary power to quash proceedings when the applicant approaches the court after a
decade long delay while witness examination is already in progress. (E-6)

Case law Cited