Allahabad High Court
Tafseer Ahmad And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:209021
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 44965 of 2025
Tafseer Ahmad And 4 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Santosh Kumar Singh, Syed Wajid Ali
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 11.10.2023, cognizance/summoning dated 01.03.2025 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 60 of 2025 (State Vs Tafseer Ahmad and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 167 of 2023, under Section 304-A IPC and Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, Police Station Milak, District Rampur.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that cognizance cannot be taken on a charge sheet under the provisions of Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 as there is a provision for taking cognizance only on complaint.
4. Submission is that the controversy is covered by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jayant and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh: (2021) 2 SCC 670 and placing reliance upon the same, this Court has quashed identical summoning order with liberty to the authorities to proceed afresh. Reliance has been placed on an order dated 15.05.2025 passed in Application U/s 528 No. 15070 of of 2025 in relation to the same incident but registered at different crime number. For ready reference, the order dated 15.05.2025 reads as under:-
"1. Heard Mr. Mazhar Ullah, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for the State.
2. Present petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 04.10.2023 along with impugned cognizance order dated 18.01.2025 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Case no. 61 of 2025 (State vs. Mohd. Jameel and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 0168 of 2023, under Section 304-A IPC and 4/21 Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, PS- Milak, District Rampur pending in court of learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) II, Rampur.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that FIR has been lodged by opposite party no. 2 namely Shivam Jain, Mines and Mineral Officer, Rampur against the applicants for the offence under sections 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 and 304 IPC. After concluding the investigation, concerned Investigating Officer submitted impugned charge sheet dated 18.01.2025 under Section 4/21 of the Act of 1957 and 304-A IPC whereupon learned Magistrate concerned took cognizance vide impugned order dated 18.01.2025 opining therein that from perusal of case diary there is sufficient ground for taking cognizance under Section 4/21 of the Act of 1957 and 304-A IPC.
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 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.).
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) since it is apparent that over the charge sheet the cognizance has been taken up by learned concerned court in pursuance to Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 along with section 304-A IPC on dated 18.01.2025 itself and as such the same is not permissible in the eye of law as enunciated in the case of Jayant and others (supra).
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, impugned cognizance order dated 18.01.2025 is hereby quashed and consequential proceeding in pursuance to the above cognizance order dated 18.01.2025 is quashed only in pursuance to Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 in respect of applicants. However, learned court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) II, Rampur is hereby directed to proceed against applicants in pursuance to impugned order dated 18.01.2025 in respect of Section 304-A IPC.
8. The instant petition stands partly allowed accordingly.
9. It is also made clear that above mentioned direction will not preclude the authorities concerned to proceed afresh against the applicants in respect of Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act, 1957, if required, in pursuance to proper procedure available at law. "
5. Learned AGA submits that since Section 304-A IPC is also there, submissions made have no force.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that since main provision under which the applicant is being sought to be prosecuted is Section 4/21 of the Act, 1957, mere invocation of Section 304-A IPC would not validate the order taking cognizance on charge sheet.
7. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant is found entitled to get same protection as was granted to the applicant of Application U/s 528 No. 15070 of of 2025.
8. The application stands partly allowed accordingly.
9. Proceedings of aforesaid case are hereby quashed.
10. It is also made clear that this order will not preclude the authorities concerned to proceed afresh against the applicants in respect of Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act, 1957, if required, as per proper procedure available under law.
(Kshitij Shailendra,J.)
November 21, 2025
AKShukla/-
