Justice Rajnish Kumar, Allahabad High Court
Allahabad High Court: Case Involving One Cognizable And Other Non-Cognizable Offences Will Be Deemed To Be Cognizable Offence
|The Allahabad High Court dismissed an Application challenging the summoning Order arising out of a case under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 118(1), 109(1) of the BNS.
The Allahabad High Court clarified that a case involving two or more offences, where at least one is cognizable, will be deemed a cognizable case, even if the other offences are non-cognizable.
The Court dismissed an Application challenging the summoning Order arising out of a case under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 118(1), 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The Court found no illegality or error in the impugned proceedings against the Applicants which may call for interference by the Court.
A Single Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar remarked, “In view of above, it is apparent that if a case relates to two or more offences, of which, one offence is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding the fact that the other offences are non-cognizable.”
Advocate Shashank Shukla appeared for the Applicants.
Brief Facts
A Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) was registered under Section 323 of the IPC. Subsequently, after an investigation, the NCR was converted into an FIR. The Applicants argued that the conversion of an NCR into an FIR on the same set of facts was "not permissible" and that since the initial NCR was registered under a non-cognizable offence, the police had "no right to investigate the same without order of the Magistrate."
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court noted, “Undisputedly, after receipt of medical report having an injury in head caused by sharp edged weapon, Section 118 (1) of B.N.S., 2023 was added, therefore, this case would fall under Section 174(4) of the B.N.S.S. as one of the offences is cognizable.”
The Bench explained, “In view of above, the contention of the counsel for the applicants is misconceived. Even otherwise, petitioner No.1-Vinay had approached this Court challenging the aforesaid FIR and N.C.R. on identical grounds on which this application has been filed and the Division Bench by means of the order dated 22.01.2025 after recording the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants provided that let an appropriate application be moved by the Investigating Officer concerned before the Court concerned within a week from today and the trial Court concerned shall pass appropriate order on the said application within a week thereafter.”
The Court remarked, “After filing of charge sheet, the cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate concerned and summoning order has been issued, which has been challenged in the present petition. After issuance of summoning order, the aforesaid writ petitions have been withdrawn by the petitioners which has been allowed by means of the order dated 02.05.2025 without liberty to raise the grounds raised in the said writ-petitions in case of challenge to the summoning order and proceedings, therefore, this Court is of the view that the ground taken by the applicants is also not available to the applicants now. Even otherwise, the aforesaid ground is not available, as discussed above, because once the N.C.R. was converted into an FIR on the basis of medical report on account of adding of a cognizable offence, the police was empowered to investigate the matter.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “In view of above and considering overall facts and circumstances of this case, this Court does not find any illegality or error in the impugned proceedings against the applicants which may call for interference by this Court. The application has been filed on misconceived ground and lacks merits.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Application.
Cause Title: Vinay & Anr. v. State Of U.P. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:34363)
Appearance:
Applicants: Advocates Shashank Shukla and Prachi Shukla