Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132168 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26940 of 2025 Applicant :- Raju Pasi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amarnath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Amarnath Tripathi, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash cognizance and summoning order dated 05.05.2025 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)-II, Kaushambi and entire consequential proceedings of Case no. 273 of 2025 (State vs. Kuldeep Verma and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 160 of 2024 under Section 4/21 Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and 3/4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, PS- Charwa, District Kaushambi pending in court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (J.D.)-II, Kaushambi. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that FIR has been lodged by opposite party no. 2 against unknown accused for the offence under sections 4/21 Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and 3/4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Applicant's name surfaced for the first time in the statement of informant recorded by Investigating Officer and after concluding the investigation, concerned Investigating Officer submitted impugned charge sheet dated 28.11.2024 whereupon learned Magistrate concerned took cognizance vide impugned order dated 05.05.2025 opining therein that from perusal of case diary there is sufficient ground for taking cognizance. 4. Learned counsel for applicant 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.). 5. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant petition. 6. 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 in pursuance to Section 4/21 Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and 3/4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 on dated 05.05.2025 itself and by bare perusal of the cognizance order dated 05.05.2025, it is crystal clear that there is no compliance of Section 22 of Mines and Minerals Act, 1957. 7. 7. Since the instant matter has been argued by learned counsel appearing for applicant only on the basis of legal issues and implication of applicant in sections 3/4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 is only in connection with Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 as such the impugned cognizance order dated 05.05.2025 is hereby quashed and consequential proceeding in pursuance to the above cognizance order dated 05.05.2025 is also quashed. 8. The instant petition stands allowed accordingly. 9. However, liberty is left open for authority concerned to institute a complaint against applicant in accordance with provisions of section and the Act mentioned above, if required. Order Date :- 5.8.2025 Shaswat Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad