Girdhari and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53152

Court No. - 74

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37650 of 2024

Applicant :- Girdhari And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kartikeya Saran Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The instant application has been preferred for quashing the charge-sheet no.01 of 2020, dated 26.04.2020, cognizance/summoning order dated 23.02.2021 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2440 of 2021 (State vs. Girdhari and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.0085 of 2019, under section 379 I.P.C., sections 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and sections 3/57/70 of U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963, P.S. Sarai Akil, District- Kaushambi, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicants submitted that the FIR has been lodged by opposite party no.2, namely, Rajranjan, Mines Inspector, Kaushambi against the applicants herein along with other accused for the offence under section 379 I.P.C. and sections 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and sections 3/57/70 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. After concluding the investigation, concerned Investigating Officer submitted impugned charge-sheet dated 26.04.2020 under section 379 I.P.C. and sections 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and sections 3/57/70 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, whereupon learned Magistrate concerned took cognizance vide impugned order dated 23.02.2021 opining therein that from perusal of case diary there is sufficient ground for taking cognizance under section 379 I.P.C. and sections 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and sections 3/57/70 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 against the applicants herein.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicants challenged the entire proceeding

¶10

on the ground that admittedly the Act of 1957 is special act and Section 22 of the said Act clearly provides that in respect of any offence punishable under the Act or any rules made thereunder, no court shall take cognizance except upon complaint made in writing by a person authorized in this behalf by Central Government or State Government. For substantiating his argument, learned counsel for applicants relied upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jayant and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 670 , wherein it has been observed that even if the charge-sheet is filed by the police after the investigation then for the offence under the Indian Penal Code, learned Magistrate can take cognizance, but for the offence under the Act, 1957 along with the Rules, 1963, learned Magistrate cannot take cognizance on the basis of that charge-sheet and it is further observed that the Magistrate can take cognizance only when the complaint is filed by the authorized officer along with that charge-sheet for the offence under the Act, 1957 along with the Rules, 1963. He also relied upon judgment rendered by coordinate Bench of this Court passed on dated 14.05.2024 in Application u/s 482 no. 11544 of 2019 (Ajay Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Anr.) .

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for applicants, but at the same time could not dispute the explanation made by learned counsel for applicants with regard to provision of the Act of 1957 along with Rules of 1963

¶12

After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and by bare perusal of records, it transpires that in pursuance to judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jayant and others (supra) as well as by this Court in Ajay Kumar (supra) , since it is apparent that over the chargesheet the cognizance has been taken up by learned concerned court in pursuance to section 379 I.P.C. and sections 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and sections 3/57/70 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 on dated 23.02.2021 itself and by bare perusal of the cognizance order, it is crystal clear that the cognizance taken up by learned court concerned only in pursuance to sections of IPC/BNSS is permissible and in pursuance to sections of the Act of 1957 along with Rules of 1963, the same is not permissible in the eye of law as enunciated in the case of Jayant and others (supra) .

¶13

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the

¶14

case, the proceedings initiated against the applicants in shape of Criminal Case No.2440 of 2021 (State vs. Girdhari and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.0085 of 2019, P.S. Sarai Akil, District- Kaushambi in pursuance to sections 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and sections 3/57/70 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 is hereby quashed and set-aside . As far as the proceedings initiated against the applicants in pursuance to section 379 I.P.C. is concerned, learned trial court is hereby directed to proceed as per law.

¶15

The instant application stands partly allowed accordingly.

¶16

However, it is made clear that above mentioned direction will not preclude the authorities concerned to proceed afresh against the applicants, if required in pursuance to procedure available at law.

¶17

Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Saif

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Girdhari and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girdhari and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Taisin Bano and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Rajwati and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjana Parmar and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rabin vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd Asif and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Shankar Lal and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others