The ruling turns on a clean point of criminal procedure. The offences alleged, under Sections 298 and 504 of the Penal Code, are non-cognizable, and where the police file a report in a non-cognizable case, the law deems that report a complaint. The Magistrate, the High Court held, therefore erred in taking cognizance of the police charge-sheet as a State case; it had to be treated, and decided, as a complaint. Setting aside the summoning order, the Court also recorded a pointed observation on the origin of the dispute, an instruction to employees to wear a ‘Santa Claus red cap’, warning that workplace directions which hurt the religious sentiments of employees of different faiths have no place in a democratic system.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has set aside an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, summoning an accused on the basis of a police charge-sheet under Sections 298 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that as those offences are non-cognizable, the charge-sheet must, by virtue of the Explanation to Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, be treated as a complaint and decided as a complaint case [Vikram Singh @ Vishwa Vikram Singh v. State of U.P. and Another].
Justice Saurabh Srivastava, hearing an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, partly allowed it and set aside the summoning order qua the applicant.
The procedural point
The applicant sought quashing of the charge-sheet of September 2023, the cognizance and summoning order of December 2023, and the entire proceedings of the criminal case arising out of a 2022 FIR under Sections 298 and 504 IPC. His counsel made a single submission: that both offences are non-cognizable, and that, in view of the Explanation to Section 2(d) CrPC, the charge-sheet filed by the investigating officer could not proceed as a police case but had to be proceeded with as a complaint case, relying on the decision in Shakila Bano v. State of U.P. The Additional Government Advocate, while opposing the prayer, did not dispute the legal submission.
Reproducing Section 2(d), the Court noted its Explanation, that 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 making it deemed the complainant. It followed, the Court held, that the charge-sheet under Sections 298 and 504 IPC had to be treated as a complaint and decided as such, and that the Magistrate had fallen into legal error in taking cognizance of it as a State case.
The order
The Court accordingly set aside the summoning order of December 2023, insofar as it concerned the applicant, and partly allowed the application. It clarified that the order would not preclude the court concerned from proceeding with the case as a complaint case, if required, in accordance with law, so that the effect of the ruling is to correct the procedural track on which the case travels, not to end the prosecution outright.
The ‘Santa cap’ observation
Beyond the procedural point, the Court took note of what the documents on record disclosed about the genesis of the dispute. Those documents, it observed, showed clearly that a compulsion had been created by the superior authorities of a store, referred to as “V Bazar”, requiring employees to wear a “Santa Claus red cap”, which was said to hurt the sentiments of employees of different faiths and beliefs. Such action, the Court held, is not permitted in the democratic system of the country, in which every citizen is free to follow his or her faith and belief.
On that footing, the Court warned the applicant, along with his superior authorities, not to repeat such instructions, which disturbed the peaceful and harmonious atmosphere of the workplace among employees. The observation was recorded as a caution attached to the disposal of the application, rather than as a finding fastening liability, the criminal case itself being remitted to proceed, if at all, as a complaint.
Why it matters
The core of the decision is a reminder of a distinction that is easily blurred in practice. The classification of an offence as cognizable or non-cognizable governs not only the powers of the police to investigate and arrest, but also the form in which a case reaches the Magistrate. Where the offences are non-cognizable, the Explanation to Section 2(d) converts a completed police report into a complaint, with the consequence that the case must run on the complaint track, with the police officer as the complainant, rather than as a State prosecution. A Magistrate who takes cognizance of such a report as a State case mistakes the very character of the proceeding, which is the error the High Court corrected here.
The practical effect for the accused is real but limited. The summoning order does not survive, but the prosecution is not necessarily at an end; the Court expressly left it open to the trial court to proceed as a complaint case in accordance with law. The value of the ruling lies in insisting that the statutory route be followed, a safeguard that matters because the complaint procedure carries its own protections, including the Magistrate’s independent application of mind before process issues, which a mislabelled State case can bypass.
The Court’s observation on the underlying ‘Santa cap’ instruction is a distinct and notable feature. Though not necessary to the procedural result, it reflects a concern for freedom of belief in the workplace: an employer’s direction that employees adopt attire associated with a particular festival can, the Court indicated, impinge on the religious sentiments of those of other faiths, and the freedom of every citizen to follow his or her own faith is not to be disturbed by such compulsion. Framed as a caution rather than a finding, the observation signals that workplace requirements touching religious symbolism must respect the diversity of belief among employees, without pronouncing on any individual’s liability in the pending case.
Case Title: Vikram Singh @ Vishwa Vikram Singh v. State of U.P. and Another [Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 33795 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Saurabh Srivastava, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Date of Order: September 10, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Anand Kumar Dwivedi and Raj Kumar Mishra for the applicant; Government Advocate for the State.
Status: Application partly allowed. Summoning order set aside qua the applicant; charge-sheet under Sections 298 and 504 IPC to be treated as a complaint. Court free to proceed as a complaint case in accordance with law.