HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35578 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 14.09.2023 along with cognizance order dated 05.10.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi as well as entire proceedings of Case no. 8276 of 2023 (State vs. Shubham Kesharwani & others) arising out of Case Crime no. 179 of 2023 under sections 186, 384, 353, 34 IPC and 4/21 Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, PS- Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi pending in court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that FIR has been lodged by opposite party no. 2, against four persons including applicant for the offence under sections 186, 384, 353, 34 IPC and 4/21 Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. After concluding the investigation, concerned Investigating Officer submitted impugned charge sheet dated 14.09.2023 whereupon learned Magistrate concerned took cognizance vide impugned order dated 05.10.2023. 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mary Puncha (Sheeb Jose), Mohd. Kalim Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Babbal Alias Wazahul Kumar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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.). Learned counsel for applicant submitted that co-accused Imran @ Kiyamuddin has already been granted relief vide order dated 6.8.2025 passed by this Court in Application u/s 482 no. 3044 of 2025 and applicant seeks parity with same. 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) it is apparent that over the charge sheet, the cognizance has been taken up by learned concerned court in pursuance to Sections 186, 384, 353, 34 IPC and 4/21 Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act on dated 05.10.2023 and since cognizance under sections 186, 384, 353, 34 IPC 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act has been imposed in connection with Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 therefore the same is not permissible in the eye of law as enunciated in the case of Jayant and others (supra). Co-accused has also been granted relief vide order dated 6.8.2025 passed in case of Imran @ Kiyamuddin (supra) and parity of the same is applicable in favour of NA528 No. 35578 of 2025 2 applicant herein. 7. 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 such the impugned cognizance order dated 05.10.2023 is hereby quashed and consequential proceeding in pursuance to the above cognizance order dated 05.10.2023 is also quashed only in respect of applicant herein. 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 applicant, if required in pursuance to procedure available at law. September 23, 2025 Shaswat NA528 No. 35578 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad