Quashed

Lalit Kumar Dixit and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 May 2023A482/17836/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings under the Mines and Minerals Act. The court held that the prosecution, instituted on a police report instead of a complaint by an authorized officer, was not maintainable and the magistrate lacked jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Quashed proceedings of Case No.5869 of 2010 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad, arising out of Crime No.205 of 2019.

Lalit Kumar Dixit and 3 Others Vs State of… — Mining and Natural Resources | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17836 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Lalit Kumar Dixit And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

A personal affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Farrukhabad in compliance with the order dated 22.05.2023. It is taken on record.

¶6

Let it be numbered by the office.

¶7

A perusal of the affidavit shows that there is no cavil on the part of the State that the impugned proceedings could not have been instituted on the basis of police report. It could be done on the basis of a complaint alone and that too, by the officer authorized by the State Government, as envisaged under Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. The impugned prosecution therefore, on the basis of the police report, is not maintainable and the proceedings before the Magistrate is a fortiori without jurisdiction.

¶8

In the personal affidavit of the S.P., it has also been acknowledged that the then S.H.O., Merapur, Rajendra Kumar Rawat, Constable 452 Pawan Kumar, Sub-Inspector Sudhir Singh, Sub-Inspector Sunil Sisodia and the then Circle Officer, Kayamganj are all responsible prima facie for the aforesaid lapse. A preliminary inquiry has been ordered against them, which is under way.

¶9

Let the said inquiry be carried to its logical conclusion.

¶10

In the circumstances obtaining this application succeeds and is allowed . The proceedings of Case No.5869 of 2010, State vs. Lalit Kumar and others (arising out of Crime No.205 of 2019), under Section 4/21 Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, P.S. Merapur, District Farrukhabad, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad are hereby quashed .

¶11

An entry be made in the G.D. of the Police Station Merapur, District Farrukhabad, that the proceedings of Case Crime No.205

¶12

of 2019, under Section 4/21 Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 stand quashed in the order by this Court. This part of the order shall be cause to be carried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad.

¶13

Let this order be communicated to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad through the learned Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad by the Registrar (Compliance) within a week . This order be also communicated to the S.H.O., P.S. Merapur, District Farrukhabad through the S.P. Farrukhabad by the Registrar (Compliance), also within a week.

¶14

Order Date :- 29.5.2023 Jitendra

¶15

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lalit Kumar Dixit and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Kumar Dixit and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Mani Tripathi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. .and Another

Mohd Kuddus Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bal Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shradha Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Dayavati and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another