Allowed

Indrajeet and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2020A482/3638/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court partly allowed an S. 482 application. By citing Imran, it held cognizance for the MMDA offence via charge sheet unsustainable, quashing those proceedings but leaving others intact, and directed bail consideration within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings for offences under Section 4/21 MMDA Act quashed; proceedings for IPC and Forest Act offences continued; bail to be disposed within 30 days; no coercive action for 30 days.

Indrajeet and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3638 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Indrajeet And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hare Krishna Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 18.02.2018, as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 995 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 284 of 2017, under Sections 379, 411 IPC and Section 4/21 Mines and Mineral (Development) Act, 1957 and Section 26 Indian Forest Act, Police Station Poonch, District Jhansi pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants 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 applicants 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 applicants 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 26.04.2019 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 applicants is concerned, no interference is warranted in the matter. In this regard as from the facts and evidence of the case, it cannot be said that no prima facie

¶11

case is made out against the applicants for the said offences. Hence, though proceedings against the applicants 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, 411 IPC and Section 26 Indian Forest Act shall continue.

¶12

Accordingly application is allowed in part. Further proceedings of the aforesaid case against the applicants 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, 411 IPC and Section 26 Indian Forest 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 applicants pursuant to the charge-sheet for the said offences.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 18.2.2020

¶17

Sachdeva

Indrajeet and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrajeet and 2 Others 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.

Awdhesh Kumar Vs State of Up and Another

Sheela Devi Vs State of U.P.and Another