Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:92248 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18233 of 2025 Applicant :- Amarjeet Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Subhash Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for the State. 2. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case no. 3099 of 2017 (State vs. Abdul Malik & others) arising out of Case no. 3099 of 2017 under Section 379 IPC, 3/21 of Mines Act, 1952, 3(1) Public Property & Damages Act, PS- Swar, District Rampur arising out of Case Crime no. 472 of 2016 in respect of cognizance order dated 30.09.2017 as well as charge sheet no. 128 of 2017 dated 03.04.2017 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Rampur, District Rampur. 3. It submitted by learned counsel for applicants that FIR has been lodged by opposite party no. 2/Sub-Divisional Magistrate against the applicants over the allegation that during checking applicants were found involved in illegal mining, which was registered at Case Crime no. 472 of 2016, under Section 379 IPC and 3/21 Mines and Mineral Act, 1952, 3(1) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, PS- Swar, District Rampur. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants for offence under Section 379 IPC, 3/21 of Mines Act, 1952, 3(1) Public Property & Damages Act and learned concerned court took cognizance vide order dated 30.09.2017 which has been challenged through the instant application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that Section 79 of Mines Act, 1952 and Section 22 of Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 provides specifically provides for preferring complaint for offence being committed under this Act but in the instant matter FIR has been lodged at the behest of Sub-Divisional Officer which is not sustainable. It is also submitted that no offence under Section 379 IPC and 3(1) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 is made out against the applicants. 5. Per contra learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer but did not disputed the provisions contained 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 applicant is strictly in consonance with the Section 79 of the Mines Act of 1952, the impugned cognizance order dated 30.09.2017 as well as consequential proceedings in pursuance to the above cognizance order dated 30.09.2017 is quashed only in respect of applicants namely Amarjeet Singh, Satnaam Singh, Satendra Pal Singh and Pooran Singh. 8. The instant petition stands allowed accordingly. 9. 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. Order Date :- 28.5.2025 Shaswat Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad