Dismissed

Jay Karan v. State of Up and 4 Others

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2024CRLR/1602/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed a criminal revision challenging the dismissal of a complaint under Sections 4 and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. It held that the Magistrate did not err in dismissing the complaint as a private complainant lacks jurisdiction under Section 22. The Court clarified that the revisionist may separately file an FIR

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was dismissed as it lacked merit. The revisionist was made free to lodge a fresh FIR for IPC offences.

Jay Karan vs State of Up and 4 Others — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:148970

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1602 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Jay Karan Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Nirbhay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. representing the State and perused the record.

¶7

Instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 26.02.2024 passed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 144195 of 2022 (Jay Karan Vs. Nilesh Singh and others), under Sections 379, 414, 504, 506 IPC and Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and. Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short "Act, 1957") whereby complaint of the revisionist has been dismissed on the ground that complainant has no jurisdiction to file complaint with regard to offene under the Act, 1957.

¶8

Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is that since in the complaint, allegations of offence under Sections 379, 414, 504, 506 IPC have also been levelled apart from Section 4 read with Section 21 of the Act, 1957, therefore, the complaint was maintainable.

¶9

On the other hand, Mr. Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A., assisted by Mr. Prashant Singh, learned Brief Holder, representing the State vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist by contending that in view of Section 22 of the Act, 1957, the complaint under the provisions of the said Act by the revisionist, who is a private person, is not maintainable. He further submits that Section 22 of the Act, 1957 provides that no Court shall take cognizance of offence punishable under the said Act

¶10

and Rules made thereunder except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorized in this case by the Central Government or the State Government.

¶11

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint of the revisionist considering the provisions of Section 22 of the Act, 1957, hence I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 26.02.2024, which is flawless.

¶12

The criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶13

However, it is made clear that so far as alleged offence under Sections 379, 414, 504, 506 IPC are concerned, it is open for the revisionist to lodge the first information report for those offences against the person concerned.

¶14

Order Date :- 12.9.2024 Shubham

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jay Karan v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay Karan v. State of Up and 4 Others

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

Rinkoo Bind vs State of Up and 3 Others

Suresh Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Shayam Lal and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Khushal and 7 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Kallu and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramu Paswan and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another