HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35196 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State. 2. Present application has been preferred with the following prayers:- "... to quash the charge sheet dated 05.11.2015 along with cognizance order dated 16.12.2016 as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case no. 266 of 2016 (State vs. Rahul Pandey and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 290 of 2015 under sections 379, 411, 353, 506 IPC, sections 3, 57, 70 Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1963 and section 4/21 Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, PS- Obra, District Sonbhadra.." 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant submitted that in identical matter, co-accused Ravi Jalan preferred Application u/s 528 BNSS no. 12128 of 2025 (Ravi Jalan vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) before this Court challenging the same proceeding, wherein pleadings were entertained by this Court and after due consideration judgment and order dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure no. 4) has been passed by this Court whereby proceeding consequent of cognizance order dated 16.12.2016 has been quashed and set aside. It is submitted that instant application has been preferred at the behest of applicant who is also implicated in same Case Crime no. 290 of 2015 and the similar argument has been raised by learned counsel for applicant for challenging the said proceedings. It is also submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant has been summoned in pursuance to sections 379, 411, 353, 506 IPC along with sections 3, 57, 70 Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1963 and section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 but since the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bindu Kumari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rahul Pandey .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) same has been imposed in connection with Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 therefore the same are also not sustainable. 4. Although, learned AGA opposed the prayer sought through instant application but did not disputed the fact in respect of judgment dated 11.04.2025. 5. In view of foregoing discussion, parity of judgment and order dated 11.04.2025 is applicable in favour of applicant and as such impugned cognizance order dated 16.12.2016 is hereby quashed and consequential proceeding in pursuance to the above cognizance order dated 16.12.2016 is also quashed in respect of applicant herein, in the light of judgment and order dated 11.4.2025 passed in case of Ravi Jalan (supra). 6. However, the above mentioned order will not preclude the concerned authorities for re-initiation of the proceedings against applicant, if required, in accordance with law. 7. The instant application u/s 528 BNSS stands allowed accordingly. September 15, 2025 Shaswat NA528 No. 35196 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad