HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34814 of 2025 Court No. - 77 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 chargesheet dated 16.01.2017 and cognizance and summoning order dated 07.12.2018 passed in Case No.4999 of 2018 (State Vs. Raghvendra Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime no. 508 of 2016, under Section 379, 411 IPC and Section 4/21 Mines and Minerals (D&R) Act, 1957, P.S.- Kakora, District Jalaun, pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun. 3. Learned counsel for applicant has challenged the said chargesheet along with summoning order 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 has relied upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jayant and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mahruddin @ Baba .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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.). 4. Although learned AGA did not dispute the argument raised by learned counsel for applicant in respect of Section 22 of the Act, 1957, but vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant petition by way of submitting that order impugned is of the year 2018 and the same has been challenged through the instant application after about seven years without explaining the delay and latches and as such, the same may be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. 5. After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it transpires that in the present matter, chargesheet was filed in the year 2017 whereupon cognizance was taken in the year 2018 and now the same has been challenged through the instant application after about seven years without explaining the delay and if the Court fails to take into consideration delay and latches while invoking the powers of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS without any reasonable ground, there would be no end to the litigation. A party cannot approach the High Court under Section 528 BNSS at his whim and caprice merely because no period of limitation in filing the petition under the aforesaid provision is provided. A petition under Section 528 BNSS must be filed within a reasonable time and it should not be vitiated by inordinate delay and latches on the part of applicant. 6. Within what time a person should approach the Court under Section 528 BNSS depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Reasonable time generally means any time which is not manifestly unreasonable and which is fairly necessary for approaching the Court. Reasonable time would mean a time required by a prudent litigant to approach the Court in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Analyzing the facts of the instant case in the backdrop of aforesaid position, it is absolutely clear that applicant has approached this Court at a highly belated stage i.e. after about seven years of passing the order impugned. The applicant after awaking up from deep slumber, approached this Court without any iota of explanation for the delay as per his choice. Thus, it can by no stretch of imagination be stated that the applicant has NA528 No. 34814 of 2025 2 approached this Court within a reasonable time. The applicant wants this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court would be reluctant to do. 8. In view thereof, the instant application stands dismissed being highly belated. Applicant is, however, at liberty to take recourse to the alternate remedy, if available under the law. September 11, 2025 Vivek Kr. NA528 No. 34814 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad