Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:117162 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23528 of 2024 Applicant :- Chandrashekhar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 28.02.2016 along with cognizance/summoning order dated 17.11.2018 and the entire proceeding of Case no.8914 of 2018 (State vs. Chandrashekhar Singh) arising out of Case Crime no.51 of 2016, under sections 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, PS- Kachhwa, District- Mirzapur, pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that initially FIR has been lodged by opposite party no. 2 against the applicant along with one unknown for the offence under sections 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, wherein after concluding the investigation, concerned Investigating Officer submitted impugned charge sheet dated 28.02.2016 against the applicant under sections 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, whereupon learned Magistrate concerned took cognizance vide impugned order dated 17.11.2018 opining therein that from perusal of case diary there is sufficient ground for taking cognizance under sections 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. 4. So far as sections 3/4 of P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 is concerned, learned counsel for applicant submits that there is hardly any description of any land pertains to public property, which enables the prosecution to implicate the applicant in pursuance to sections 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and as such the same may be quashed by this Court. 5. Thereafter with regard to sections 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act, learned counsel for applicant further 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 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.). 6. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application, but could not dispute the aforesaid arguments raised by learned counsel for applicant. 7. 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 with regard to Sections 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and by bare perusal of the cognizance order, it is crystal clear that there is hardly any section of IPC/BNSS in which cognizance has been taken up by learned court concerned and as such the same is not permissible in the eye of law as enunciated in the case of Jayant and others (supra). 8. 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 as well as coordinate Bench of this Court, there is no occasion available with the prosecution to continue and pursue the matter arising out of Case Crime no.51 of 2016 and the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 17.11.2018 is hereby quashed and consequential proceeding in pursuance to the above cognizance/summoning order dated 17.11.2018 is also quashed. 9. The instant petition stands allowed accordingly. 10. 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. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Saif Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad