The Allahabad High Court has affirmed that offences under Section 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) are cognizable in Uttar Pradesh due to a pre-existing state notification, rejecting a petition to quash criminal proceedings on grounds of non-cognizability and delay. The judgment reinforces the legal continuity of state amendments made under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932, even after the repeal of the CrPC.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicants, including Rayyan Ahmad @ Reyaan and three others, were named in an FIR registered as Case Crime No. 152 of 2025 at Police Station Devgaon, District Azamgarh. The complainant, opposite party no. 2 Afsari, alleged that on 28.04.2025 at approximately 09:00 p.m., the applicants damaged a public drainage in front of her house. When she objected, they hurled abuses and issued threats. She further alleged that on 05.05.2025, the applicants again abused her and threatened to damage her raised platform (Chabutra) and drainage, warning of dire consequences.
Key Facts
- The FIR was registered on 05.05.2025 under Sections 324(4), 352, and 351(3) BNS
- The alleged incidents occurred on 28.04.2025 and 05.05.2025
- The FIR was lodged eight days after the first incident, on 05.05.2025
- No medical report was obtained to substantiate the alleged hurt under Section 324(4) BNS
- No independent witnesses were examined by the Investigating Officer
- Applicant no. 4 is identified as a journalist who had previously published critical news on social media regarding the Gram Pradhan and his supporters
- The applicants claim the FIR is retaliatory, filed in response to multiple complaints filed by them and their family against local authorities
Procedural History
- 28.04.2025: First alleged incident of damage and threats
- 05.05.2025: Second alleged incident; FIR registered on same day
- 17.07.2025: Charge-sheet filed by police under Sections 324(4), 352, 351(3) BNS
- 15.12.2025: Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons to the applicants
- Case No. 3123961 of 2025 (State vs. Ekhlakh): Trial proceedings initiated
- 12.06.2026: Application under Section 528 BNSS filed before the Allahabad High Court seeking quashment of charge-sheet, cognizance order, and entire proceedings
The Parties' Positions
The applicants contend that:
- Sections 324(4), 352, and 351(3) BNS are non-cognizable offences under the original schedule of BNS
- The cognizance and summoning order is invalid because the case should have been treated as a complaint case under Section 2(1)(h) BNSS
- The delay of eight days in lodging the FIR is unexplained and casts doubt on the prosecution’s case
- The witnesses are interested parties and no independent evidence supports the allegations
- The case is a retaliatory fabrication targeting a journalist for his media activities
The State and complainant contend that:
- The offence under Section 351(3) BNS is cognizable in Uttar Pradesh due to Notification dated 31.07.1989 issued under Section 10 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932
- The charge-sheet was filed after proper investigation and collection of evidence
- The cognizance order was passed lawfully by the Magistrate
- Allegations of delay and lack of medical evidence are matters for trial, not for quashment
Relief Sought
The applicants sought quashment of:
- The charge-sheet dated 17.07.2025
- The cognizance and summoning order dated 15.12.2025
- All proceedings in Case No. 3123961 of 2025
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) is a cognizable offence in Uttar Pradesh, given that the State Government had issued a notification in 1989 under the repealed CrPC making its corresponding IPC provision (Section 506) cognizable, and whether such notification survives the transition to BNSS.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicants’ counsel argued that Section 351(3) BNS, corresponding to Section 506 IPC, is listed as non-cognizable in the First Schedule of BNSS. They relied on Section 2(1)(h) BNSS, which mandates that proceedings in non-cognizable offences must be initiated as complaint cases, not on police reports. They contended that the cognizance order was therefore illegal. They further argued that the delay in lodging the FIR, absence of medical evidence, and lack of independent witnesses rendered the case frivolous and retaliatory, warranting quashment under Section 528 BNSS.
For the Respondent/State
The State and complainant’s counsel relied on the Notification dated 31.07.1989 issued under Section 10 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932, which had declared Section 506 IPC cognizable and non-bailable in Uttar Pradesh. They argued that Section 531(2) BNSS saves all notifications in force under the CrPC at the time of its repeal, and that Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, deems references to repealed enactments as references to the re-enacted law. They cited Vinay Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P., Mata Sevak Upadhyay v. State of U.P., and Harishankar Bagla v. State of Madhya Pradesh to establish that the 1989 notification remains valid and applicable to BNS.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed analysis of the legislative transition from CrPC to BNSS and the continued validity of state notifications issued under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932. It held that Section 531(2) BNSS explicitly saves notifications issued under the CrPC that were in force immediately before the commencement of BNSS. The Court emphasized that Section 10 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932, is a central enactment empowering State Governments to declare certain offences cognizable, and such notifications are not ultra vires.
"Section 531(2) of B.N.S.S., it is clear that the notification issued under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was in force immediately before commencement of B.N.S.S., shall be deemed to be issued under the corresponding provision of B.N.S.S."
The Court further relied on Arnold Rodrigues v. State of Maharashtra and Mata Sevak Upadhyay v. State of U.P. to affirm that the 1989 notification, which made Section 506 IPC cognizable, is deemed to apply to Section 351(3) BNS by virtue of the saving provisions under Section 531(2) and Section 8 of the General Clauses Act. The Court rejected the argument that the State’s notification required presidential assent under Article 254(2), noting that Section 10 of the 1932 Act is a central law authorizing the State to amend the schedule, thereby avoiding repugnancy.
"Parliament being supreme, it certainly could make a law abrogating or repealing by implication provisions of any pre-existing law and no exception could be taken on the ground of excessive delegation to the act of Parliament itself."
Regarding the delay in filing the FIR and absence of medical evidence, the Court held that these are matters of evidence and credibility, which must be determined at trial. The Court observed that quashment under Section 528 BNSS is not a substitute for trial and cannot be used to evaluate the reliability of witnesses or the merits of the prosecution case.
The Verdict
The application under Section 528 BNSS was dismissed. The Court held that Section 351(3) BNS is cognizable in Uttar Pradesh by virtue of the Notification dated 31.07.1989, which survives under Section 531(2) BNSS. The cognizance and summoning order dated 15.12.2025 is valid. The charge-sheet and all proceedings in Case No. 3123961 of 2025 shall continue before the Trial Court. The applicants are directed to face trial, and no interim relief is granted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Cognizability of BNS Offences Is Not Automatic
- Practitioners must verify whether a BNS offence is cognizable by checking for any pre-existing state notifications under the CrPC that were saved under Section 531(2) BNSS
- The mere listing in the BNSS schedule does not override state amendments made under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932
- A cognizance order cannot be quashed merely because the offence appears non-cognizable on the face of the schedule
Delay and Lack of Medical Evidence Are Trial Issues
- Delay in FIR filing, absence of medical reports, or absence of independent witnesses cannot be grounds for quashment under Section 528 BNSS
- These are evidentiary matters that must be tested during trial through cross-examination and corroboration
- Courts will not conduct mini-trials at the quashment stage, even if the case appears weak
Retaliatory Allegations Require More Than Mere Assertion
- Claims of retaliatory FIRs based on prior complaints or media activity must be supported by concrete evidence of malafide intent
- Mere assertion of retaliation, without documentary or witness proof, will not justify interference with criminal proceedings
- Journalists and activists must anticipate that critical reporting may attract legal action, and quashment is not a shield against prosecution unless malice is proven
