Applicant sought quashing of charge sheet, cognizance order and trial in a mining theft case. Citing Kanwar Pal Singh, the court declined to quash prosecution under the IPC but noted cognizance under the MMDR Act requires authorisation, leaving that ground for the trial court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:15205
Court No. - 76
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3289 of 2025 Applicant :- Muslim Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.
Regulation) Act, 1957, the Magistrate is barred in taking cognizance in a report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. by the police. The next argument is that a complaint under this Act can only be made through an authorized person mandated under this Act. He therefore submits that the cognizance order is bad in law. Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 24.04.2023 passed in Application U/s 482 No. 10940 of 2023. Relevant para of said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-
"Having considered the rival submission made by the parties and taking into consideration the provision contained in Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957, which provides that "No Court shall taken 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 State Government" and in view of the provision contained in Section 74 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Consession) rules, 1963 which provides "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", order dated 09.01.2023 taking cognizance of the offence based on the charge-sheet dated 13.06.2017 and summoning the applicants under Section 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 3/57/70 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rule, 1963 is liable to be set aside, however it is further open for the competent authority authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government to file a complaint in writing by an authorised person under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 and further, if a complaint in writing of the facts constituting such offence by the District Officer or by any authorised officer in this behalf is filed under the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, the learned Magistrate may proceed in accordance with law under Section 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 and Sections 3/57/70 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963.
In view of the foregoing discussion, entire proceedings of Case No.160 of 2023 (State Vs. Mohd. Kamal @ Raju and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0169 of 2017, under Sections 3/57/70 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rule, 1963 and Sections 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957, Police Station Jahanganj, District Farrukhabad, based on the charge-sheet stands quashed."
"In view of the aforesaid discussion, we would uphold the order of the High Court refusing to set aside the prosecution and cognizance of the offence taken by the learned Magistrate under Section 379 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. We would, however, clarify that prosecution and cognizance under Section 21 read with Section 4 of the Mines Regulation Act will not be valid and justified in the absence of the authorization. Further, our observations in deciding and answering the legal issue before us should not be treated as findings on the factual allegations made in the complaint. The trial court would independently apply its mind to the factual allegations and decide the charge in accordance with law. In the light of the aforesaid observations, the appeal is partly allowed, as we have upheld the prosecution and cognizance of the offence under Section 379 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. There would be no order as to costs."
Order Date :- 4.2.2025
Shafique
Justice Vinod Diwakar
Digitally signed by :- SAFIKUR RAHAMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether cognizance taken on a police charge sheet is barred under Section 22 MMDR Act absent an authorised complaint.
Whether the charge sheet and proceedings should be quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Application U/s 482 No. 10940 of 2023 (Allahabad High Court order dated 24.04.2023)Relied on¶3
Kanwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P. & AnrRelied on¶5
S.L.P. (Criminal) No.10707 of 2019
5 provisions across 4 enactments
Muslim
Deendayal and Others
Vinod Diwakar
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
