Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:119521 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6078 of 2025 Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kant Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for the State. 2. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet No.41 of 2024 dated 16.03.2024 under Sections 379, 411 IPC, 4/21 Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, 2/3 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, Police Station Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur arising out of Case Crime No.0192 of 2023 and cognizance dated 22.08.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur well as Criminal proceedings vide Case No.5326/2023 (State vs. Kamlesh Kumar and others) pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur. 3. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that FIR has been lodged by opposite party no. 2 namely Poona Ram Ahake, Mines Inspector, Mirzapur against the applicants and implication of the applicants is under Section 4/21 of Mines Act, 1952 alongwith Section 379 IPC and Section 2/3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 in Case Crime No.0192 of 2023. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that although, no proceedings can be initiated in pursuance to Mines and Minerals Act by way of lodging the First Information Report in pursuance to Section 2/3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 when the specific procedure has been defined for lodging complaint if any illegal mining has been carried out by any person who has been alleged to be involved in the same, so far as regarding implication of Section 2/3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, no corroborating evidences were recorded at the time of preferring charge sheet and there is hardly any quantum of damage ascertained while preferring charge sheet against the applicants, moreover, the property which was alleged to be damaged by the applicants is in shape of pond which was allotted to some another person and there is hardly any complaint or any report submitted by the person against whom the lease has been extended for the said pond, it is only the Mines Inspector, Mirzapur who is the informant in the instant matter. From perusal of F.I.R, it is apparent that the Section 4/21 Mines Act, 1952 has been imposed against the applicants however, from allegations mentioned in the F.I.R, it appears that the same shows the commission of offence under Section 4/21 Mines and Mineral Act, 1957. 5. Per contra, learned AGA although vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the instant application but did not dispute the provisions of law which has strictly been covering the arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicants in the Act of 1957 and 1952 6. For ready reference Section 79 of Mines Act, 1952 is reproduced hereinbelow: "79. Limitation of prosecutions.? No court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act, unless complaint thereof has been made? (i) within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed, or (ii) within six months of the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector, or (iia) in any case in which the accused is or was a public servant and previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government or of any other authority is necessary for taking cognizance of the offence under any law for the time being in force, within three months of the date on which such sanction is received by the Chief Inspector, or (iii) in any case where a Court of inquiry has been appointed by the Central Government under section 24, within one year after the date of the publication of the report referred to in sub-section (4) of that section, whichever is later. Explanation.?For the purposes of this section? (a) in the case of continuing offence, the period of limitation shall be computed with reference to every point of time during which the offence continues; (b) where for the performance of any act time has been extended under this Act, the period of limitation shall be computed from the expiry of the extended period." 7. In the light of aforesaid discussion, arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicants is strictly in consonance with the Section 79 of the Mines Act of 1952 therefore, entire proceedings of impugned charge sheet No.41 of 2024 dated 16.03.2024 under Sections 379, 411 IPC, 4/21 Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, 2/3 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, Police Station Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur arising out of Case Crime No.0192 of 2023 and cognizance dated 22.08.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur well as Criminal proceedings vide Case No.5326/2023 (State vs. Kamlesh Kumar and others) pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur is quashed only in respect of applicants namely Kamlesh Kumar and Ashish Kumar Tiwari. 8. The instant petition stands allowed accordingly. 9. However, it is made clear that the above mentioned order will not be in shape of any impediment for initiating fresh proceedings if required against the applicants in strict consonance of law. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 Rakesh Digitally signed by :- RAKESH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad