HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 45851 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Heard Sri Ashwini Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State. 2. The instant application has been preferred for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 424 of 2025 (State vs. Jitendra Niranjan and Others) under sections 111, 318, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) BNS and sections 3/21 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 687 of 2024, P.S. Kotwali, District- Lalitpur, pending in the court of learned Additional Session Judge 1st/Special Judge (BUDS Act, 2019), Lalitpur, including charge-sheet dated 07.04.2025 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 11.04.2025. 3. It is the opening submission extended by learned counsel for applicant that initially the applicant has been implicated in Case Crime No.687 of 2024 in pursuance to sections 111, 318, 336(3), 340(2), 351(3), 61(2) BNS, wherein after conducting detail investigation, concerned Investigating Officer preferred charge-sheet on dated 07.04.2025 by way of implicating the applicant in pursuance to sections 111, 318, 336(3), 340(2), 351(3), 61(2) BNS along with sections 3/21 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019, whereupon cognizance of offence has been taken up by learned court concerned vide order dated 11.04.2025 in pursuance to sections 111, 318, 336(3), 340(2), 351(3), 61(2) BNS and sections 3/21 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashwini Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vishal Khurana .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4. While challenging the entire proceedings conducted by concerned Investigating Officer in shape of preferring charge-sheet along with cognizance order dated 11.04.2025, learned counsel for applicant sought the attention of Court over sections 29 and 30 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019 (herein after referred to as "the Act of 2019"), which are reproduced herein below:- "29. Competent Authority to be informed of offences The police officer shall, on recording information about the commission of an offence under this Act, inform the same to the Competent Authority. 30. Investigation of offences by Central Bureau of Investigation. (1) On receipt of information under section 29 or otherwise, if the Competent Authority has reason to believe that the offence relates to a deposit scheme or deposit schemes in which - (a) the depositors, deposit takers or properties involved are located in more than one State or Union territory in India or outside India; and (b) the total value of the amount involved is of such magnitude as to significantly affect the public interest, the Competent Authority shall refer the matter to the Central Government for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. (2) The reference made by the Competent Authority under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be with the consent of the State Government under section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. (3) On the receipt of the reference under sub-section (1), the Central Government may transfer the investigation of the offence to the Central Bureau of Investigation under section 5 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946." NA528 No. 45851 of 2025 2 5. From plain reading of above sections, learned counsel for applicant submitted that the mandatory provisions available under section 29 specifically assigned powers to the competent authority under the Act of 2019 without receiving information from concerned police officers who received some information in respect of offence committed by any person or group, which attracts offences mentioned under Chapter-VI of the Act of 2019 and thereafter upon information so received under section 29, if the competent authority has reasons to believe that the offence relates to a deposit scheme or deposit schemes, the matter shall be referred to Central Bureau of Investigation in compliance of section 30(1)(a) & (b) of the Act of 2019 6. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that in absence of due compliance of sections 29 & 30 of the Act of 2019, the entire proceedings as automatically initiated and cognizance of offence drawn by learned court concerned is also bad in the eye of law and the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed by this Court. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. although vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for applicant, but at the same time did not dispute the provisions available under sections 29 & 30 of the Act of 2019. 8. In view of the arguments so raised by learned counsel for applicant, which seems to be justified that the mandatory provisions as available under sections 29 & 30 of the Act of 2019 has not been complied with, rather it is the State Police who lodged the F.I.R. being Case Crime No. 687 of 2024 and started investigation and submitted charge-sheet on dated 07.04.2025, whereupon cognizance of offence has been taken up by learned court concerned without looking into the mandatory provisions under sections 29 & 30 of BUDS Act of 2019 and as such entire proceedings is hereby set- aside only after receiving information by concerned police and thereafter the mandatory provisions as defined under sections 29 & 30 of the Act of 2019 has to be followed by concerned police station. NA528 No. 45851 of 2025 3 9. However, it is made clear that quashing of the entire proceedings as directed above shall not preclude the authorities concerned to proceed afresh against the applicant in strict consonance of sections 29 & 30 of the Act of 2019. 10. The instant application stands allowed accordingly. September 9, 2026 S.Mishra NA528 No. 45851 of 2025 4 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad