HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8651 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Despite service of notice upon the opposite party No. 2, none has appeared on his behalf, even in the revised call. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record. 3. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed for quashing of charge sheet dated 28.07.2024 as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 5458 of 2024 (State Vs. Manoj Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0269 of 2023, under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C. read with Section 4/21 of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to the Act, 1957') and Section 2/3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to the, 'P.D.P.P. Act'), Police Station Adalhat, District Mirzapur, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur. Further prayer has also been made for quashing of cognizance order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the court concerned. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that in the instant case the F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C. read with Section 4/21 of the Act, 1957 and Section 2/3 of the P.D.P.P. Act.'). Insofar as the allegations made against the applicants for the offence under Section 4/21 of the Act, 1957, as per Rule 76 of U.P. Mine and Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the, 'Rules, 2021'), the District Officer or Deputy Commissioner of the District or Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Kant Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Manoj Yadav And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) any person authorized by him can file complaint under Section 22 of the Act, 1957, therefore, the present proceeding initiated by way of lodging the F.I.R. is not maintainable, hence on this score only the present proceeding of the aforesaid criminal case is an abuse of the process of law. 5. 5. Further, it has been argued that the lodging of the first information report taking aid of provisions of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 is nothing but an abuse of process of the law, inasmuch as, the said provisions cannot be invoked to lodge a criminal case on the allegations of damage or loss caused to property of Gram Sabha. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon a reported decision of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. (482) Application No. 9964 of 2020 (Munshi Lal and another Vs. State of U.P. and another). 6. Thus, it has been argued that the Magistrate has acted illegally and without application of judicial mind in taking cognizance on the charge sheet submitted under Section 4/21 of the Act, 1957 and under Section 2/3 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984. Thus, the impugned cognizance order passed by the court concerned is bad in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be quashed insofar it relates to offence committed under Section 4/21 of the 1957 and under Section 2/3 of P.D.P.P. Act, 1984, for which complaint is provided. Submission is that the malafides which motivated the opposite party have been emphasized and several submissions in order to expose the falsity of the allegations have been made. Further submission is that malafides behind the prosecution are apparent on the face of record and if the proceedings against the applicants are allowed to go on, it will result in the abuse of court's process. Learned counsel for the applicants, therefore, submits, no prosecution could lie against the applicants, in such circumstances. 7. Learned A.G.A. could not dispute the above facts asserted on behalf of the applicants. 8. I have considered the rival submissions advanced at the Bar. 9. As per provisions contained in Rule 76 of Rules, 2021, the District Officer or Deputy Commissioner of the District or any person authorized by him can file complaint under Section 22 of the Act, 1957, for the offence under Section 4/21 the Act, 1957, only complaint can be filed, and which offence is cognizable and a separate distinct offence. Further, in view of the NA528 No. 8651 of 2025 2 judgment of this Court in Munshi Lal (supra), lodging of the first information report taking aid of provisions of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 is nothing but an abuse of process of the law, inasmuch as, the said provisions cannot be invoked to lodge a criminal case on the allegations of damage or loss caused to the Gram Sabha property. Thus, the cognizance order passed by the court concerned upon submission of charge sheet, so far as it relates to Section 4/21 of the Act, 1957 and Section 2/3 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984, the present application is maintainable and the same in respect thereof is liable to be allowed. 10. Accordingly, the present application filed under Section 528 BNSS is allowed in part. Consequently, the present proceeding, insofar as it relates to Section 4/21 of the Act, 1957 and Section 2/3 of P.D.P.P. Act, 1984, is hereby quashed, leaving it open for the informant to file complaint before the court concerned in accordance with law for such an offence. 11. So far as other offences under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C. are concerned, this Court finds that allegations made in the F.I.R. discloses commission of a cognizable offence and those allegations have found support in the statement recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C., on the basis whereof the impugned cognizance order has been passed against the applicants and this Court in exercise of its power under Section 528 BNSS is not required to assess the correctness of the allegations and reliability of evidence. Thus, the prayer for quashing for such offences is refused. 12. Applicants are directed to appear before the court concerned and apply for bail within 15 days from today, and in case such an application for bail is filed by the applicant the same shall be decided by the court concerned in accordance with law in view of the guidelines of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another(Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021). 13. With the above observations/ directions, the present applicant under Section 528 BNSS is partly allowed. (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) September 18, 2026 Mustaqeem. NA528 No. 8651 of 2025 3 Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad