VINOD KUMAR TIWARI @ RANUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40457 of 2026

Vinod Kumar Tiwari @ Ranu
                                                                  .....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 applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
Supplementary affidavit preferred by learned counsel for applicant is taken
on record.

2. The instant application has been preferred for quashing the entire
proceedings of Sessions Trial No.39 of 2025 (State vs. Mukesh Kumar Jain
and Others) under sections 111, 61(2), 318, 352, 351(3) BNS, arising out of
Case Crime No.612 of 2024, P.S. Kotwali Lalitpur, District- Lalitpur,
pending before learned court of Additional Sessions Judge- I, Lalitpur,
including charge sheet dated 21.01.2025 and cognizance/summoning order
dated 05.11.2024.

3. While challenging the entire proceedings conducted by concerned
Investigating Officer in shape of preferring charge-sheet along with
cognizance order, learned counsel for applicant 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
                                                              NA528 No. 40457 of 2026
                                   2

     deposit scheme or deposit schemes in which -

     (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 applicant
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 applicant 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
01.07.2026 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.
                                                                                            NA528 No. 40457 of 2026
                                                                    3


                                    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
                                    for applicant, 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 applicant 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 applicant, 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, entire proceedings of the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.39 of
                                    2025 (State vs. Mukesh Kumar Jain and Others) under sections 111, 61(2),
                                    318, 352, 351(3) BNS, arising out of Case Crime No.612 of 2024, P.S.
                                    Kotwali Lalitpur, District- Lalitpur, pending before learned court of
                                    Additional Sessions Judge- I, Lalitpur, including charge sheet dated
                                    21.01.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 05.11.2024, are hereby
                                    set-aside qua applicant herein.

                                    9. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the authorities
                                    concerned to proceed afresh against the applicant 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