Allowed¶13

Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Jul 2025NA528/23062/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing under S. 528 BNSS; cognizance on police charge sheet barred for Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 offences by Section 22 (complaint by authorised person required); illegal mining case; Sections 411, 413 IPC; Section 21(4) MMDR Act; Sections 3, 72(6) U.P. Minerals Rule 2021; Jayant v. State of M.P. (2021) 2 SCC 670 followed; Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P. (Application u/s 482 No. 11544 of 2019, 14.05.2024) followed; CJM Ballia; Case Crime No. 294 of 2023, PS Bairia, District Ballia; cognizance order dated 12.09.2023 quashed; liberty to proceed afresh.

What did the court decide?

Application under S. 528 BNSS allowed; cognizance/summoning order dated 12.09.2023 and consequential proceedings quashed, with liberty to the authorities to proceed afresh in accordance with law. ¶13

Rajesh Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another — Mining and Natural Resources | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application under S. 528 BNSS allowed; cognizance/summoning order dated 12.09.2023 and consequential proceedings quashed, with liberty to the authorities to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the Magistrate could validly take cognizance on the basis of the police charge sheet for offences under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, in view of the bar under Section 22 of the Act permitting cognizance only upon a complaint in writing by a person authorised by the Central or State Government. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

Cognizance taken on 12.09.2023 over the charge sheet in pursuance to Sections 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 is not permissible in the eye of law, as enunciated in Jayant (supra).

¶11

Ratio / Principle

There being no occasion for the prosecution to continue the matter arising out of Case Crime no. 294 of 2023 (the matter having been argued only on legal issues relying on Apex Court precedent), the impugned cognizance order dated 12.09.2023 is quashed and the consequential proceedings in pursuance thereof are also quashed.

¶12

Key takeaways

The quashing directions will not preclude the authorities concerned from proceeding afresh against the applicant, if required, in accordance with the procedure available at law.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) allowed an application under S. 528 BNSS filed by Rajesh Yadav seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 09.07.2023, the cognizance/summoning order dated 12.09.2023 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 8102 of 2023 (State vs. Rajesh Yadav) under Sections 411, 413 IPC, Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Sections 3, 72(6) of the U.P. Minerals Rule, 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 294 of 2023, PS Bairia, District Ballia, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia. Following Jayant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2021) 2 SCC 670, and a co-ordinate Bench decision in Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P. (Application u/s 482 No. 11544 of 2019, decided 14.05.2024), the Court held that cognizance taken over the police charge sheet in pursuance of Sections 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 was impermissible, Section 22 of the 1957 Act permitting cognizance only upon a complaint in writing by a person authorised by the Central or State Government. The cognizance order dated 12.09.2023 and consequential proceedings were quashed, with liberty reserved to the authorities to proceed afresh against the applicant in accordance with law.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115813

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 23062 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Nath Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State.

¶6

Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 09.07.2023, cognizance/summoning order dated 12.09.2023 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.8102 of 2023 (State vs. Rajesh Yadav) under sections 411, 413 I.P.C. and section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and sections 3, 72(6) of U.P. Minerals Rule, 2021 arising out of Case Crime no.294 of 2023, PS- Bairia, District- Ballia, pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia.

¶7

Learned counsel for applicant submitted that FIR has been lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicant for the offence under sections 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 and section 41 ,411 I.P.C.. After concluding the investigation, concerned Investigating Officer submitted impugned charge sheet dated 09.07.2023 under sections 411, 413 I.P.C. and section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and sections 3, 72(6) of U.P. Minerals Rule, 2021, whereupon learned Magistrate concerned took cognizance vide impugned order dated 12.09.2023 opining therein that from perusal of case diary there is sufficient ground for taking cognizance under sections 411, 413 I.P.C. and section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and sections 3, 72(6) of U.P. Minerals Rule, 2021.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicant challenged the entire proceeding 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 applicant relied upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble

¶9

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, 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. He also relied upon judgment rendered by co-ordinate 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.) .

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant petition.

¶11

After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and perusing the 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 charge sheet the cognizance has been taken up by learned concerned court in pursuance to Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 also on dated 12.09.2023 itself and as such the same is not permissible in the eye of law as enunciated in the case of Jayant and others (supra) .

¶12

Since the instant matter has been argued by learned counsel appearing for applicant only on the basis of legal issues, especially relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, there is no occasion available with the prosecution to continue and pursue the matter arising out of Case Crime no. 294 of 2023 and the impugned cognizance order dated 12.09.2023 is hereby quashed and consequential proceeding in pursuance to the above cognizance order dated 12.09.2023 is also quashed.

¶13

The instant petition stands allowed accordingly.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 17.7.2025/Saif

¶16

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

Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Charan Singh Alias Neeru vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Subhash Chandra and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Kumari Muskan Chawla vs State of Up and Another

Pushpraj Singh @ Pushpendra @ Shilpu vs State of U.P. and Another

Subodh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another