Ajay Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the cognizance and summoning order dated 14.05.2024 passed by learned court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Gonda and chargesheet No. 01 of 2024, dated 23.05.2024, under Sections 379, 411, 414, 420, 406, 120B, 413 IPC and Sections 4/21 of Mines Act, 1952 and Section 23 of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 alongwith consequential proceedings in CIS No. 24325 of 2024 (State Vs. Ajay Kumar Yadav and others), arising out of FIR No. 391 of 2023, under Sections 379, 411, 414, 420, 406, 120B, 413 IPC and Sections 4/21 of Mines Act, 1952 and Section 23 of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, Police Station Umari Begamganj, District Gonda, pending before the learned trial court.

¶11

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that an FIR was lodged by the Mining Inspector under Sections 379, 411, 414, 420, 406, 120B, 413 IPC, Sections 4/21 of Mines Act, 1952 and Section 23 of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred as 'Act, 1957'), Police Station Umari Begamganj, District Gonda. Whereafter, chargesheet was filed on 23rd of May,

¶12

A482 No. 10333 of 2024

¶13

2

¶14

2024 before the learned trial court and the learned trial court in an erroneous manner has taken cognizance on 14th of May, 2024 and issued process. He argued that there is clear cut bar mandated under Section 22 of the Act, 1957 which is reproduced as under:

¶15

"22. 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 in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government."

¶16

Referring the aforesaid, he submits that there is bar for taking cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act, 1957, except apart a complaint is made in writing by a person authorized by the Central Government or the State Government. He added that the Mines Inspector is, admittedly, authorized officer, so as to lodge the complaint but on place of lodging the complaint, he has chosen to lodge the First Information Report.

¶17

He added that as per the settled proposition of law, the commission of offence under the Indian Penal Code, the learned trial court, on receiving the police report, can take cognizance, but so far as the present matter is concerned, there is an FIR lodged by the authorized officer for the offences under the Act, 1957 and, therefore, the bar which is prescribed under Section 22 of the Act, 1957 shall come into force and that has been ignored by the learned trial court which is erroneous and against the settled proposition of law and, thus, the same may be set aside.

¶18

On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid but could not dispute the settled proposition of law as well as the law of bar prescribed under Section 22 of the Act, 1957.

¶19

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, prima facie, it is culled out that the Mines Inspector has lodged the First Information Report under the Act, 1957 alongwith other offences of Indian Penal Code, though, being the special Act, the bar prescribed under Section 22 of the Act would come into force, which prima facie seems to be ignored by the learned trial court.

¶20

The matter requires consideration.

¶21

A482 No. 10333 of 2024

¶22

3

¶23

Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date.

¶24

Steps be taken within a week.

¶25

List/put up this matter in the week commencing 27.10.2025.

¶26

In the meantime, opposite parties may file their counter affidavits.

¶27

Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of CIS No. 24325 of 2024 (State Vs. Ajay Kumar Yadav and others), arising out of FIR No. 391 of 2023, under Sections 379, 411, 414, 420, 406, 120B, 413 IPC and Sections 4/21 of Mines Act, 1952 and Section 23 of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, Police Station Umari Begamganj, District Gonda, shall remain stayed, so far as the present applicant is concerned.

¶28

September 3, 2025

¶29

kkv/

¶30

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶31

Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ajay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anurag Rastogi vs Deputy Managing Director and Corporate Development Officer S.B.I. Mumbai and 2 Others

Sabhajeet Yadav vs Sri Amit Singh P.S.F. Divisional Forest Officer Social Forestry, Sultanpur

Phool Chandra Shukla vs Shri Manoj Kumar Sonkar, Conservator of Forest Devi Patan Mandal U.P. Gonda

Shivkaran vs U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Head Office Lko. Thru. Managing Director and 2 Others

Manish Kumar Maurya vs Deepak Kumar Singh, Circle Officer P.S-Mishrikh Sitapur

Naman Pratap Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Addil. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 4 Others