No. - 37714 of 2025 Umesh Pal Singh State of U.P & Anr. v. Shivendra) & Ors.

Gopal Srivastava G.A. Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State.

Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the chargesheet dated 09.11.2022 and cognizance and summoning order dated

14.11.2022 along with entire criminal proceedings of Case No.5392 of 2022 (State Vs. Shivendra and others), arising out of Case Crime no. 94 of 2022, under Section 379, 411, 504, 353 IPC and Section 4/21 Mines and Minerals (D&R) Act, 1957 and Section 3(2) of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, P.S.- Madhogarh, District Jalaun, pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai.

Learned counsel for applicant has challenged the entire proceeding on the ground that admittedly the Act of 1957 is Special Act and Section 22 of the said Act clearly provides that in respect of any offence punishable under the Act or any rules made thereunder, no court shall take cognizance except upon complaint made in writing by a person authorized in this behalf by Central Government or State Government. For substantiating his argument, learned counsel for applicant relied upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jayant and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2021) 2 SCC 670 wherein it has been observed that even if the charge sheet is filed by the police after, the investigation then for the offence under the Indian Penal Code, learned Magistrate can take cognizance but for the offence under the Act, 1957, learned Magistrate cannot take cognizance on the basis of that charge sheet and it is further observed that the Magistrate can take cognizance only when the complaint is filed by the authorized 2 NA528 No. 37714 of 2025 officer along with that charge sheet for the offence under the Act, 1957. He also relied upon judgment rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed on dated 14.05.2024 in Application u/s 482 no. 11544 of 2019 (Ajay Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Anr.).

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant petition but did not dispute the argument raised by learned counsel for applicant in respect of Section 22 of the Act, 1957.

After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it transpires that in pursuance to judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jayant and others (supra) as well as by this Court in Ajay Kumar (supra), cognizance of offence taken by learned concerned court in pursuance to Section 4/21 Mines and Minerals (D&R) Act, 1957 on dated 14.11.2022, is bad in the eye of law. In sofar as Section 379, 411, 504, 353 IPC and Section 3(2) of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 are concerned, the same have been imposed in connection with Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act, 1957, therefore the same is also not permissible in the eye of law.

In view thereof, chargesheet dated 09.11.2022 and cognizance and summoning order dated 14.11.2022 along with entire criminal proceedings of Case No.5392 of 2022 (State Vs. Shivendra and others), arising out of Case Crime no. 94 of 2022, under Section 379, 411, 504, 353 IPC and Section 4/21 Mines and Minerals (D&R) Act, 1957 and Section 3(2) of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, P.S.- Madhogarh, District Jalaun, pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai, are hereby quashed.

However, it is made clear that above mentioned direction will not preclude the authorities concerned to proceed afresh against the applicant, if required in pursuance to procedure available at law. September 25, 2025 Vivek Kr. (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad