HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36755 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Akshay Raj Singh holding brief of Sri Prakash Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for the State. 2. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case no. 3617 of 2022 (State of U.P. vs. Shiv Kishor Yadav and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 0025 of 2022 under sections 379, 411, 332, 353 IPC and 7 CLA and 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, PS- Chakar Nagar, District Etawah. 3. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that FIR has been lodged by opposite party no. 2, against one Shiv Kishore Yadav (applicant no. 2) and unknown accused for the offence under sections 332, 353, 379, 411 IPC, 7 CLA and 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Applicant no. 1 was not named in the FIR, however during investigation, his name surfaced and after concluding the investigation, concerned Investigating Officer submitted impugned charge sheet dated 10.05.2022 under Section 379, 411 IPC, 7 CLA and 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 against applicant no. 1 and under sections 332, 353, 379, 411 IPC, 7 CLA and 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 against applicant no. 2 whereupon learned Magistrate concerned took cognizance vide impugned order dated 24.06.2022. 4. Learned counsel for applicant challenged the entire proceeding on the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prakash Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pooran Singh And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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.). Learned counsel for applicant also submitted that co-accused Brij Kishore Yadav has already been granted relief vide order dated 8.5.2025 passed by this Court in Application u/s 528 BNSS no. 33948 of 2025 and as such applicants seeks parity with the 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 against applicant no. 2 in pursuance to Section 332, 353, 379, 411 IPC, 7 CLA and 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and against applicant no. 2 in pursuance to sections 379, 411 IPC, 7 CLA and 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 on dated 24.06.2022 and since cognizance under Section 332, 353, 379, 411 IPC, 7 CLA has been imposed in connection with Section 21(1) 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). NA528 No. 36755 of 2025 2 7. Since the instant matter has been argued by learned counsel appearing for applicants only on the basis of legal issues, especially relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, as such the impugned cognizance order dated 24.06.2022 is hereby quashed and consequential proceeding in pursuance to the above cognizance order dated 24.06.2022 is also quashed. 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 applicants, if required in pursuance to procedure available at law. September 23, 2025 Shaswat NA528 No. 36755 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad