Allahabad High Court
Kaushal Gupta And Another vs State Of U.P. on 11 September, 2025
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:162918
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33541 of 2025
Kaushal Gupta And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Atipriya Gautam, Divya Jyoti, Shashank Pandey, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri Shashank Pandey, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for the State.
2. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 16.7.2025 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Ist/ACJM, Rampur in Case Crime no. 0071 of 2024 (State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Gupta and another) under sections 406, 420, 323, 506 IPC and 4/21 of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, PS- Swar, District Rampur along with charge sheet dated 27.6.2024 and 17.8.2024 as well as entire proceeding of Case Crime no. 0071 of 2024.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that FIR has been lodged by informant namely one Ranjeet Kaur, against the applicants for the offence under sections 406, 420, 323, 506 IPC and 4/21 of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 alleging therein that applicants approached informant and told the informant that her land is not useful for agricultural purposes and if she gives her land to them then they will make it useful for the agricultural purposes and for that purpose an agreement has been executed between informant and applicant no. 2. By cheating the informant, applicants got sign of informant over different papers which is for the purpose of extracting sand from the said land of informant. Thereafter informant received notice from the Government to deposit royalty amounting to Rs. 38,72,000 on dated 22.02.2020 then she realised that applicants had cheated her. When she reached at the residence of applicants, they beat her and threatened her life. After concluding the investigation, concerned Investigating Officer submitted impugned charge sheet dated 17.8.2024 whereupon learned Magistrate concerned took cognizance vide impugned order dated 16.7.2025.
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.).Learned counsel for applicant submitted that as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. vs. State of U.P. reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690, offence under section 420 and 406 i.e. cheating and criminal breach of trust cannot coexist simultaneously in the same set of facts and they are antithetical to each other.
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 the FIR which has been preferred at the behest of private person who claims herself to be the landlord of the same property from which certain mines and minerals have been extracted unauthorizedly by the applicants but as per Section 22 of Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 it provides that competent authority, Government authority may only prefer complaint for offences under this Act. Moreover, as per the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Delhi Race Club (supra), implication of applicants in pursuance to Section 406 and 420 IPC is also not permissible. 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 Section 4/21 Mines and Minerals (DR) Act, 1957 on dated 16.7.2025 and since cognizance under Sections 406, 420, 323, 506 IPC 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) and Delhi Race Club (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, as such the impugned cognizance order dated 16.7.2025 is hereby quashed and consequential proceeding in pursuance to the above cognizance order dated 16.7.2025 is also quashed only in respect of applicants namely Kaushal Gupta and Monika Gupta.
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.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
September 11, 2025
Shaswat
