Allahabad High Court

RAVI TIWARI URF RAVI SHANKAR TIWARI AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 20 September 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

Non‑compliance with the mandatory provisions of Sections 29 and 30 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019 invalidates the charge‑sheet and cognizance, warranting the quash of the Sessions Trial proceedings.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme (BNDS) Act seeking to quash the Sessions Trial No.342 of 2025 (State vs. Mukesh Kumar Jain & Others). They argued that the investigating police failed to comply with mandatory provisions of Sections 29 and 30 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019, which require the competent authority to be informed of the offence and, where applicable, refer the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The State opposed the prayer but did not dispute the statutory provisions. The High Court, noting the parity with earlier judgments (Parse vs State U.P. and Surendra Pal Singh vs State U.P.), held that the non‑compliance rendered the charge‑sheet and cognizance orders invalid. Consequently, the court set aside the entire proceedings of the Sessions Trial, while allowing the authorities to restart the case in accordance with Sections 29 and 30 of the Act. The application was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether failure to comply with Sections 29 and 30 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019 invalidates the charge‑sheet and cognizance of the Sessions Court.
Whether the Sessions Trial proceedings can be quashed on the ground of procedural non‑compliance with the Act.

Legislation cited

Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019 — s. 29, 30
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 — s. 5, 6
Indian Penal Code — s. 111, 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(3), 352

Subjects

quash of criminal proceedings
mandatory statutory compliance
Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act
CBI investigation
Section 528 application
cognizance
high court order

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40456 of 2026

Ravi Tiwari Urf Ravi Shankar Tiwari And 4 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vijit Saxena
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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 -
NA528 No. 40456 of 2026
2

(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
3

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
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…