State of U.P v. Pawan Yadav, arising out of Case Crime

(FIR) No. 159 of 2023, under Sections 3(1)/72(1)/58 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 and Section 4/21 of Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, Police Station Gosaiganj, District Lucknow as well as cognizance order dated

12.12.2023 passed by learned CJM, Lucknow. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that an FIR was lodged bearing (FIR) No. 159 of 2023, under Sections 3(1)/72(1)/58 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 and Section 4/21 of Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, Police Station Gosaiganj, District Lucknow and cognizance order dated 12.12.2023 was passed by learned CJM, Lucknow, against the present applicant, including one another co- accused, namely, Pankaj Kumar Yadav, who approached this Court by way of instituting an application under Section 482 2 A482 No. 7895 of 2025 Cr.P.C. No. 1440 of 2024 and challenged the whole proceedings i.e. filing of the chargesheet, taking cognizance of the offence and the issuance of summons before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, wherein a final order was passed on 19.02.2024 and the whole proceedings had been set aside, at the admission stage. The order dated 19.02.2024 is reproduced hereunder: "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Nushrat Jahan, learned AGA for the State.

2. In view of the proposed order, notice to opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed with.

3. By means of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed the following main relief:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may very graciously be pleased to quash impugned Cognizance order dated 12.12.2023 passed by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate District: Lucknow in Case No. 138796/2023; Case Crime (F.I.R) No. 159/2023; Under Section: 3(1)/72(1)/58 U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules 2021 and 4/21 Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act-1957; Police Station: Gosaiganj; District: Lucknow (State of U.P. Vs. Pawan Yadav and others) and along with impugned Charge Sheet which is annexed herewith as Annexure No. (01) and (02) to the petition, and further stated that quash all the consequential proceedings related to applicant."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the FIR was lodged against the petitioner under the aforesaid sections; after investigation, the charge sheet has been filed; thereafter, the court concerned took cognizance and issued summons against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the aforesaid offences, the proceedings may not be emanated by lodging FIR and if such FIR is longed and charge sheet is filed, then the court concerned cannot take cognizance in view of Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the MMDR Act"). Section 22 of the MMDR Act has been quoted in para-14 of the petition, which reads as under:- 3 A482 No. 7895 of 2025 "That section 22 of the MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1957 (No. 67 of 1957) Cognizance of offences 'No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunder except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorised this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government'."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the incident in question inasmuch as the name of the petitioner emerged first time on the basis of statement of vehicle owner Sri Deep Prakash Chauhan in which he has stated that the petitioner has taken Vehicle No.UP 32 LN 4382 on the rent of Rs.4,000/- per night. He has also submitted that the offence in question is compoundable in nature and the exercise of compounding may be undertaken against the main accused persons.

6. Ms. Nushrat Jahan, learned AGA, has stated that so far as bar of Section 22 the MMDR Act as has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, she has nothing to say as the Apex Court in re; Jayant and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2021) 2 SCC 670, has held that bar of Section 22 of the MMDR Act shall be attracted only when the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence in MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder and orders for issuance of process under the MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder. In the present case, only the offences of the MMDR Act are indicated. However, she has stated that the required exercise for seeking compounding of the offence may be undertaken by the court concerned and in such exercise, the concerning person should appear before the court concerned for seeking compounding.

7. In view of the facts and circumstances and also having regard the bar of Section 22 of the MMDR Act as well as the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Jayant (supra), I hereby quash/ set aside the impugned cognizance order dated 12.12.2023 at the admission stage. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the court concerned and the court concerned may thereafter carry out the required exercise compounding of the offence, strictly in accordance with law, summoning those persons whose presence is required, if prayer for compounding is made 4 A482 No. 7895 of 2025 before the court concerned.

8. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed." Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the case of the present applicant is ditto identical and is arising out of same case crime number and the present applicant has been summoned for the offence under the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 which can run as complaint case and not as police case. The applicant is seeking the same relief, as is granted to the co-accused, Pankaj Kumar Yadav. Learned AGA appearing for the State could not dispute the aforesaid facts. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the case of the present applicant is identical to the case of co-accused, Pankaj Kumar Yadav, wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed the order, while setting aside the impugned order dated 12th of December, 2023. Therefore, no criminal proceeding is running against the present applicant, as the order dated 19.02.2024 is evident that the same was passed not only with respect to co- accused, Pankaj Kumar Yadav but the order was set aside. Consequently, the criminal proceeding shall not go on against the present applicant in furtherance of the summoning order dated 12th of December, 2023. However, as prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, the liberty is given to the applicant to move an appropriate application before the authorities/court concerned for compounding of the offences, as is prescribed under the law. With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is hereby disposed of, at the admission stage. September 17, 2025 kkv/ (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

(FIR) No. 159 of 2023, under Sections 3(1)/72(1)/58 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 and Section 4/21 of Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, Police Station Gosaiganj, District Lucknow as well as cognizance order dated

12.12.2023 passed by learned CJM, Lucknow. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that an FIR was lodged bearing (FIR) No. 159 of 2023, under Sections 3(1)/72(1)/58 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 and Section 4/21 of Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, Police Station Gosaiganj, District Lucknow and cognizance order dated 12.12.2023 was passed by learned CJM, Lucknow, against the present applicant, including one another co- accused, namely, Pankaj Kumar Yadav, who approached this Court by way of instituting an application under Section 482 2 A482 No. 7895 of 2025 Cr.P.C. No. 1440 of 2024 and challenged the whole proceedings i.e. filing of the chargesheet, taking cognizance of the offence and the issuance of summons before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, wherein a final order was passed on 19.02.2024 and the whole proceedings had been set aside, at the admission stage. The order dated 19.02.2024 is reproduced hereunder: "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Nushrat Jahan, learned AGA for the State.

2. In view of the proposed order, notice to opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed with.

3. By means of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed the following main relief:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may very graciously be pleased to quash impugned Cognizance order dated 12.12.2023 passed by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate District: Lucknow in Case No. 138796/2023; Case Crime (F.I.R) No. 159/2023; Under Section: 3(1)/72(1)/58 U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules 2021 and 4/21 Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act-1957; Police Station: Gosaiganj; District: Lucknow (State of U.P. Vs. Pawan Yadav and others) and along with impugned Charge Sheet which is annexed herewith as Annexure No. (01) and (02) to the petition, and further stated that quash all the consequential proceedings related to applicant."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the FIR was lodged against the petitioner under the aforesaid sections; after investigation, the charge sheet has been filed; thereafter, the court concerned took cognizance and issued summons against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the aforesaid offences, the proceedings may not be emanated by lodging FIR and if such FIR is longed and charge sheet is filed, then the court concerned cannot take cognizance in view of Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the MMDR Act"). Section 22 of the MMDR Act has been quoted in para-14 of the petition, which reads as under:- 3 A482 No. 7895 of 2025 "That section 22 of the MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1957 (No. 67 of 1957) Cognizance of offences 'No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunder except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorised this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government'."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the incident in question inasmuch as the name of the petitioner emerged first time on the basis of statement of vehicle owner Sri Deep Prakash Chauhan in which he has stated that the petitioner has taken Vehicle No.UP 32 LN 4382 on the rent of Rs.4,000/- per night. He has also submitted that the offence in question is compoundable in nature and the exercise of compounding may be undertaken against the main accused persons.

6. Ms. Nushrat Jahan, learned AGA, has stated that so far as bar of Section 22 the MMDR Act as has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, she has nothing to say as the Apex Court in re; Jayant and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2021) 2 SCC 670, has held that bar of Section 22 of the MMDR Act shall be attracted only when the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence in MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder and orders for issuance of process under the MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder. In the present case, only the offences of the MMDR Act are indicated. However, she has stated that the required exercise for seeking compounding of the offence may be undertaken by the court concerned and in such exercise, the concerning person should appear before the court concerned for seeking compounding.

7. In view of the facts and circumstances and also having regard the bar of Section 22 of the MMDR Act as well as the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Jayant (supra), I hereby quash/ set aside the impugned cognizance order dated 12.12.2023 at the admission stage. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the court concerned and the court concerned may thereafter carry out the required exercise compounding of the offence, strictly in accordance with law, summoning those persons whose presence is required, if prayer for compounding is made 4 A482 No. 7895 of 2025 before the court concerned.

8. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed." Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the case of the present applicant is ditto identical and is arising out of same case crime number and the present applicant has been summoned for the offence under the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 which can run as complaint case and not as police case. The applicant is seeking the same relief, as is granted to the co-accused, Pankaj Kumar Yadav. Learned AGA appearing for the State could not dispute the aforesaid facts. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the case of the present applicant is identical to the case of co-accused, Pankaj Kumar Yadav, wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed the order, while setting aside the impugned order dated 12th of December, 2023. Therefore, no criminal proceeding is running against the present applicant, as the order dated 19.02.2024 is evident that the same was passed not only with respect to co- accused, Pankaj Kumar Yadav but the order was set aside. Consequently, the criminal proceeding shall not go on against the present applicant in furtherance of the summoning order dated 12th of December, 2023. However, as prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, the liberty is given to the applicant to move an appropriate application before the authorities/court concerned for compounding of the offences, as is prescribed under the law. With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is hereby disposed of, at the admission stage. September 17, 2025 kkv/ (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench