HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40456 of 2026 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for State. 2. The instant application has been preferred for quashing the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.342 of 2025 (State vs. Mukesh Kumar Jain and Others) under sections 111, 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, arising out of Case Crime No.190 of 2024, P.S. Narahat, District- Lalitpur, pending before learned court of Additional Sessions Judge, Lalitpur, including charge sheet dated 16.03.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 29.03.2025. 3. While challenging the entire proceedings conducted by concerned Investigating Officer in shape of preferring charge-sheet along with cognizance orders, learned counsel for applicants sought the attention of Court over Sections 29 & 30 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019 (herein after referred to as "the Act of 2019"), which are reproduced herein below:- "29. Competent Authority to be informed of offences - The police officer shall, on recording information about the commission of an offence under this Act, inform the same to the Competent Authority. 30. Investigation of offences by Central Bureau of Investigation. (1) On receipt of information under section 29 or otherwise, if the Competent Authority has reason to believe that the offence relates to a deposit scheme or deposit schemes in which - Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vijit Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ravi Tiwari Urf Ravi Shankar Tiwari And 4 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) (a) the depositors, deposit takers or properties involved are located in more than one State or Union territory in India or outside India; and (b) the total value of the amount involved is of such magnitude as to significantly affect the public interest, the Competent Authority shall refer the matter to the Central Government for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. (2) The reference made by the Competent Authority under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be with the consent of the State Government under section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. (3) On the receipt of the reference under sub-section (1), the Central Government may transfer the investigation of the offence to the Central Bureau of Investigation under section 5 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946." 4. From plain reading of above sections, learned counsel for applicants submitted that the mandatory provisions available under section 29 specifically assigned powers to the competent authority under the Act of 2019 without receiving information from concerned police officers who received some information in respect of offence committed by any person or group, which attracts offences mentioned under Chapter-VI of the Act of 2019 and thereafter upon information so received under section 29, if the competent authority has reasons to believe that the offence relates to a deposit scheme or deposit schemes, the matter shall be referred to Central Bureau of Investigation in compliance of section 30(1)(a) & (b) of the Act of 2019. 5. Learned counsel for applicants further submitted that in absence of due compliance of sections 29 & 30 of the Act of 2019, the entire proceedings as automatically initiated and cognizance of offence drawn by learned court concerned is also bad in the eye of law and the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed by this Court. Learned counsel also submitted that in similar controversy, relief has been extended vide orders dated 5.5.2026 and 01.7.2026 passed by this Court in Application u/s 528 BNSS nos. 18358 of 2026 (Parikshit Parse Vs. State of U.P. and another) and no. 23024 of 2026 (Surendra Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. and another) by way of quashing entire proceedings. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. although vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel NA528 No. 40456 of 2026 2 for applicants, but at the same time did not dispute the provisions available under sections 29 & 30 of the Act of 2019 as well as parity of the above judgements passed by this Court. 7. Since legal issue has been raised by learned counsel for applicants and as such process to issue notice to opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed with. 8. In view of the parity of above orders as well as the arguments so raised by learned counsel for applicants, which seems to be justified that the mandatory provisions as available under sections 29 & 30 of the Act of 2019 has not been complied with, rather it is the concerned police who started investigation and submitted charge sheet, whereupon cognizance of offence has been taken up by learned court concerned without looking into the mandatory provisions under sections 29 & 30 of BUDS Act of 2019 and as such, the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.342 of 2025 (State vs. Mukesh Kumar Jain and Others) under sections 111, 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, arising out of Case Crime No.190 of 2024, P.S. Narahat, District- Lalitpur, pending before learned court of Additional Sessions Judge, Lalitpur, including charge sheet dated 16.03.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 29.03.2025, are hereby set-aside qua applicants herein. 9. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the authorities concerned to proceed afresh against the applicants in strict consonance of sections 29 & 30 of the Act of 2019. 10. The instant application stands allowed accordingly. September 21, 2026 Saif NA528 No. 40456 of 2026 3 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad