Partly allowed

Awdhesh Kumar v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2020A482/3562/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought quashing of proceedings under the Mines and Minerals Act, arguing improper cognizance. The court quashed proceedings for that specific offence due to procedural irregularity but allowed proceedings for other IPC offences to continue. It directed the lower court to consider a bail application if filed within sixty days and stayed coercive action during this period.

What did the court decide?

Application granted in part; cognizance order for Mines and Minerals Act offence quashed; other proceedings allowed to continue; coercive action stayed for 60 days pending bail application.

Awdhesh Kumar Vs State of Up and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3562 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Awdhesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sant Ram Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 26.10.2018, cognizance order dated 12.12.2018 as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 3904/X of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 0168 of 2018, under Sections 379, 420, 406 IPC and Section 4/21 Mines and Mineral (Development) Act, 1957 and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station Naraini, District Banda pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that cognizance taken in the matter for the offence under Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (in short 'the Act') is illegal and without application of judicial mind. Concerned Magistrate while taking cognizance did not take into account the specific provisions provided under the aforesaid Act. Referring to the provisions of aforesaid Act, it is further submitted that criminal proceeding for the offence under Sections 4/21 of the Act, could continue on the basis of complaint under Chapter XV Cr.P.C. only. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Imran and three others vs. State of U.P. and another, 2019 LawSuit(All) 1089.

¶8

On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer argued that although proceeding for the offence under Section 4/21 of the Act could start on the basis of complaint yet other offences levelled against the applicant are cognizable on the basis of charge sheet. Thus, cognizance order for those offences cannot be termed to be bad in the eyes of law.

¶9

I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

¶10

Since offence under Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act is cognizable on the basis of complaint, procedure provided under Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. shall be followed in the matter, trial court has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act on the basis of charge sheet, therefore, cognizance order dated 12.12.2018 for the offence under Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed. So far as cognizance taken in the matter for other offences alleged in the charge sheet against the applicant is concerned, no interference is warranted in the matter in this regard as from the

¶11

facts and evidence of the case, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant for the said offences. Hence, though proceedings against the applicant for the offence under Section 4/21 of the Act are liable to be quashed yet criminal proceedings in respect of the offence under sections 379, 420, 406 IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act shall continue.

¶12

Accordingly application is allowed in part. Further proceedings of the aforesaid case against the applicant in regard to offence under Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act are quashed. However, the cognizance order is not interfered with in respect of offence under sections 379, 420, 406 IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and proceeding shall go-on for the said offences. The concerned court below is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law against the applicant pursuant to the chargesheet for the said offences.

¶13

In the last, learned counsel has urged that direction for expeditious disposal of bail application of the applicant may be given.

¶14

Hence, it is directed that in case applicant surrenders before the court below and apply for bail within sixty days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law.

¶15

For a period of sixty days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶16

Order Date :- 18.2.2020 Sachdeva

Awdhesh Kumar v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Awdhesh Kumar v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of Up and Another

Ramsaran Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jaynendra Varshney and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Pramod Kumar @ Babloo Vs State of U.P.

Indrajeet and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Sheela Devi Vs State of U.P.and Another