Partly allowed

Afreena and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Nov 2025NA528/46402/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application filed to quash charge-sheet and cognizance orders in a mining case. Court held that while Section 379 IPC offences stand, cognizance of offences under the MMDR Act cannot be taken on a police charge-sheet alone. Proceedings barred under the Act are quashed.

What did the court decide?

Application partly allowed quashing proceedings for offences under Sections 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rules 3, 58, 72 of 2021.

Afreena and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 46402 of 2025

¶3

Afreena And Another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State Of U.P. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brajesh Kumar Solanki, Devbrat Mukherjee, Siddharth Mukherjee Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 78

¶7

HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ravindra Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed for quashing of charge-sheet dated 17.08.2022, cognizance/ summoning order dated 01.05.2025 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.5344 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.83 of 2022, under Sections 379 IPC, Rules 3, 58, 78 (72 as per charge-sheet) of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021, Sections 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station Obra, District Sonbhadra, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that an FIR was lodged under Section 379 IPC, Sections 4/ 21 of U.P. Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1957"), Rules 3, 58, 72 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 2021") and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. After due investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against the applicants on 17.08.2022, under Section 379 IPC, Sections 4/ 21 of the Act, 1957, Rules 3, 58, 72 of the Rules, 2021 and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public

¶11

NA528 No. 46402 of 2025

¶12

¶13

Property Act, 1984 and the learned Magistrate took cognizance under the aforesaid sections vide order dated 01.05.2025. It is further submitted that though as per Section 22 of the Act, 1957, the court cannot take cognizance for any offence punishable under the Act, 1957 except upon the complaint in writing by the authorised person. It is further submitted that the cognizance cannot be taken on the basis of charge-sheet submitted by the police unless the complaint is filed by the authorised person and at the most as per Section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C. police report, if filed by the authorised person can be treated as complaint. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it is observed that cognizance on the basis of a police report (charge-sheet) is barred by Section 22 of the Act, 1957 and charge-sheet or police report can be filed alongwith complaint by the concerned officer for initiating the proceeding under the Act, 1957.

¶14

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 01.05.2025 so far as it relates to Sections 379 I.P.C. and Section 3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. However, he could not dispute the provisions contained in the Act, 1957 and Rules, 2021.

¶15

I have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

¶16

For reference Section 22 of the Act, 1957 and Rule 76 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 2021') are being quoted as below:-

¶17

"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.

¶18

76. Cognizance of offences.- (1) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under these rules except on a complaint in writing of the fact constituting such offence by the District Officer or by any officer authorised by him in this behalf.

¶19

(2) No Court inferior to that of a Magistrate of the First Class, shall try

¶20

NA528 No. 46402 of 2025

¶21

¶22

any offence under these rules."

¶23

The aforesaid Section 22 of the Act, 1957 is very clear which provides that no court shall take cognizance for any offence under the Act, 1957 and Rule 76 of Rules, 2021 also provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Rules, 2021 unless a complaint is filed in writing by an officer authorised by Central Government or State Government.

¶24

In the case of Kanwar Pal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2020) 14 SCC 331 , Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the Magistrate can take cognizance on the basis of charge sheet only for the offence under the Indian Penal Code, but the cognizance for the offence under the Act, 1957 can be taken only on the basis of complaint filed by authorised officer as per the provisions of Act, 1957. Paragraph 16 of this judgment is being quoted as under:-

¶25

"16. 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 C 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 MMDR Act, 1957 will not be valid and justified in the absence of the authorisation. Further, our observations in deciding and answering the legal issue before ux 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 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."

¶26

The Apex Court again in the judgment of Jayant and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 670 , observed that even if the charge sheet is filed by the police after the investigation then for the offence under the Indian Penal, the learned Magistrate can take cognizance but for the offence under the Act, 1957, the learned Magistrate cannot take cognizance on the basis of that charge sheet and it is further observed that

¶27

NA528 No. 46402 of 2025

¶28

¶29

the Magistrate can take cognizance only when the complaint is filed by the authorised officer along with that charge sheet for the offence under the Act, 1957. Paragraphs 21.3, 21.4 and 21.5 of the above judgment are being quoted as under:-

¶30

"21.3. For commission of the offence under the IPC, on receipt of the police report, the Magistrate having jurisdiction can take cognizance of the said offence without awaiting the receipt of complaint that may be filed by the authorised officer for taking cognizance in respect of violation of various provisions of the MMDR Act and Rides made thereunder.

¶31

21.4. That in respect of violation of various provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder, when a Magistrate passes an order under Section 156(3) of the Code and directs the concerned In-charge/SHO of the police station to register/lodge the crime case/FIR in respect of the violation of various provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder and thereafter after investigation the In-charge of the police station/investigating officer submits a report, the same can be sent to the Magistrate concerned as well as to the authorised officer concerned as mentioned in Section 22 of the MMDR Act and thereafter the concerned authorised officer concerned may file the complaint before the learned Magistrate along with the report submitted by the investigating officer concerned and thereafter it will be open for the learned Magistrate to take dognizance after following due procedure, issue process/summons in respect of the violations of the various provisions of the MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder and at that stage it can be said that cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate.

¶32

21.5. In a case where the violator is permitted to compound the offences on payment of penalty as per sub-section (1) of Section 23-A, considering sub-section (2) of Section 23-A of the MMDR Act, there shall not be any proceedings or further proceedings against the offender in respect of the offences punishable under the MMDR Act or any Rules made thereunder so compounded. However, the bar under sub-section (2) of Section 23-A shall not affect any proceedings for the offences under IPC, such as, Sections 379 and 414 IPC and the same shall be proceeded with further."

¶33

In view of the above legal position, it is clear that for the offence under

¶34

NA528 No. 46402 of 2025

¶35

¶36

the Act, 1957 or Rules, 2021, the concerned court can take cognizance only on the basis of complaint filed by the authorised officer, but in the present case, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on the charge-sheet filed by the police under Section 379 IPC, Sections 4/21 of the Act, 1957, Rules 3, 58, 72 of the Rules, 2021 and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Learned Magistrate would proceed further under relevant sections of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The aforesaid cognizance order is barred by Section 22 of the Act, 1957 and Rules, 2021, therefore, deserves to be set aside to the extent of the offences under Sections 4/21 of the Act, 1957 and Rules 3, 58, 72 of Rules, 2021 only. The bar under Section 22 of the Act, 1957 and Rules, 2021 shall not affect any proceedings for the offences under the Indian Penal Code, such as Section 379 IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and the same shall be proceeded with further.

¶37

However, if the authorised officer files a complaint along with police report submitted by Investigating Officer, then it will be open for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance after following due procedure, issue process/summons in respect of the offence under the Act, 1957 & Rules, 2021.

¶38

With the aforesaid observation, the present application is partly allowed to the extent quashing the proceedings for the offences under Sections 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rules 3, 58, 72 of Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 only.

¶39

(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)

¶40

November 24, 2025

¶41

Radhika

¶42

Digitally signed by :- RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Afreena and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afreena and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gunjan Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

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

Pooja and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Khushboo Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Seema and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Smt. Uma Devi and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others