VISHAL KHURANAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 45851 of 2025

Vishal Khurana
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                     :   Ashwini Kumar Ojha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                :   G.A.

Court No. - 75
                 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashwini Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for applicant and
learned A.G.A. for State.


2. The instant application has been preferred for quashing the entire
proceedings of Case No. 424 of 2025 (State vs. Jitendra Niranjan and
Others) under sections 111, 318, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) BNS and sections
3/21 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019, arising out of
Case Crime No. 687 of 2024, P.S. Kotwali, District- Lalitpur, pending in
the court of learned Additional Session Judge 1st/Special Judge (BUDS
Act, 2019), Lalitpur, including charge-sheet dated 07.04.2025 as well as
cognizance/summoning order dated 11.04.2025.


3. It is the opening submission extended by learned counsel for applicant
that initially the applicant has been implicated in Case Crime No.687 of
2024 in pursuance to sections 111, 318, 336(3), 340(2), 351(3), 61(2)
BNS, wherein after conducting detail investigation, concerned
Investigating Officer preferred charge-sheet on dated 07.04.2025 by way
of implicating the applicant in pursuance to sections 111, 318, 336(3),
340(2), 351(3), 61(2) BNS along with sections 3/21 of Banning of
Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019, whereupon cognizance of
offence has been taken up by learned court concerned vide order dated
11.04.2025 in pursuance to sections 111, 318, 336(3), 340(2), 351(3),
61(2) BNS and sections 3/21 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme
Act, 2019.
                                                       NA528 No. 45851 of 2025
                               2




4. While challenging the entire proceedings conducted by concerned
Investigating Officer in shape of preferring charge-sheet along with
cognizance order dated 11.04.2025, learned counsel for applicant sought
the attention of Court over sections 29 and 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 -


(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."
                                                      NA528 No. 45851 of 2025
                               3


5. 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

6. 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.


7. 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.


8. In view of 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 State Police who lodged the F.I.R. being Case Crime No.
687 of 2024 and started investigation and submitted charge-sheet on dated
07.04.2025, 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 is hereby set- aside only after receiving information by
concerned police and thereafter the mandatory provisions as defined
under sections 29 & 30 of the Act of 2019 has to be followed by
concerned police station.
                                                                                          NA528 No. 45851 of 2025
                                                                   4


                                    9. However, it is made clear that quashing of the entire proceedings as
                                    directed above 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.



                                                                                 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
                                    September 9, 2026
                                    S.Mishra




Digitally signed by :-
SHASHI MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad