MANOJ YADAV AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

            APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8651 of 2025

Manoj Yadav And 3 Others
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                     :   Krishna Kant Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                :   G.A.

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

1. Despite service of notice upon the opposite party No. 2, none has
appeared on his behalf, even in the revised call.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the material brought on record.

3. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed for
quashing of charge sheet dated 28.07.2024 as well as entire proceeding of
Case No. 5458 of 2024 (State Vs. Manoj Yadav and others), arising out of
Case Crime No. 0269 of 2023, under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C. read with
Section 4/21 of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
(hereinafter referred to the Act, 1957') and Section 2/3 of Prevention of
Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to the, 'P.D.P.P.
Act'), Police Station Adalhat, District Mirzapur, pending in the court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur. Further prayer has also been
made for quashing of cognizance order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the court
concerned.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the applicants are
innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further
argued that in the instant case the F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 379, 411
I.P.C. read with Section 4/21 of the Act, 1957 and Section 2/3 of the
P.D.P.P. Act.'). Insofar as the allegations made against the applicants for the
offence under Section 4/21 of the Act, 1957, as per Rule 76 of U.P. Mine
and Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the,
'Rules, 2021'), the District Officer or Deputy Commissioner of the District or
                                                         NA528 No. 8651 of 2025
                                  2


any person authorized by him can file complaint under Section 22 of the Act,
1957, therefore, the present proceeding initiated by way of lodging the F.I.R.
is not maintainable, hence on this score only the present proceeding of the
aforesaid criminal case is an abuse of the process of law.

5. Further, it has been argued that the lodging of the first information report
taking aid of provisions of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 is nothing but an abuse of
process of the law, inasmuch as, the said provisions cannot be invoked to
lodge a criminal case on the allegations of damage or loss caused to property
of Gram Sabha. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the
applicants has relied upon a reported decision of this Court passed in
Criminal Misc. (482) Application No. 9964 of 2020 (Munshi Lal and another
Vs. State of U.P. and another).

6. Thus, it has been argued that the Magistrate has acted illegally and
without application of judicial mind in taking cognizance on the charge sheet
submitted under Section 4/21 of the Act, 1957 and under Section 2/3 of the
P.D.P.P. Act, 1984. Thus, the impugned cognizance order passed by the
court concerned is bad in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be
quashed insofar it relates to offence committed under Section 4/21 of the
1957 and under Section 2/3 of P.D.P.P. Act, 1984, for which complaint is
provided. Submission is that the malafides which motivated the opposite
party have been emphasized and several submissions in order to expose the
falsity of the allegations have been made. Further submission is that
malafides behind the prosecution are apparent on the face of record and if
the proceedings against the applicants are allowed to go on, it will result in
the abuse of court's process. Learned counsel for the applicants, therefore,
submits, no prosecution could lie against the applicants, in such
circumstances.

7. Learned A.G.A. could not dispute the above facts asserted on behalf of the
applicants.

8. I have considered the rival submissions advanced at the Bar.

9. As per provisions contained in Rule 76 of Rules, 2021, the District Officer
or Deputy Commissioner of the District or any person authorized by him can
file complaint under Section 22 of the Act, 1957, for the offence under
Section 4/21 the Act, 1957, only complaint can be filed, and which offence
is cognizable and a separate distinct offence. Further, in view of the
                                                                                              NA528 No. 8651 of 2025
                                                                     3


                                    judgment of this Court in Munshi Lal (supra), lodging of the first
                                    information report taking aid of provisions of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 is
                                    nothing but an abuse of process of the law, inasmuch as, the said provisions
                                    cannot be invoked to lodge a criminal case on the allegations of damage or
                                    loss caused to the Gram Sabha property. Thus, the cognizance order passed
                                    by the court concerned upon submission of charge sheet, so far as it relates
                                    to Section 4/21 of the Act, 1957 and Section 2/3 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984,
                                    the present application is maintainable and the same in respect thereof is
                                    liable to be allowed.

                                    10. Accordingly, the present application filed under Section 528 BNSS is
                                    allowed in part. Consequently, the present proceeding, insofar as it relates to
                                    Section 4/21 of the Act, 1957 and Section 2/3 of P.D.P.P. Act, 1984, is
                                    hereby quashed, leaving it open for the informant to file complaint before
                                    the court concerned in accordance with law for such an offence.

                                    11. So far as other offences under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C. are concerned,
                                    this Court finds that allegations made in the F.I.R. discloses commission of a
                                    cognizable offence and those allegations have found support in the statement
                                    recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C., on the basis whereof the impugned
                                    cognizance order has been passed against the applicants and this Court in
                                    exercise of its power under Section 528 BNSS is not required to assess the
                                    correctness of the allegations and reliability of evidence. Thus, the prayer for
                                    quashing for such offences is refused.

                                    12. Applicants are directed to appear before the court concerned and apply
                                    for bail within 15 days from today, and in case such an application for bail is
                                    filed by the applicant the same shall be decided by the court concerned in
                                    accordance with law in view of the guidelines of Apex Court in the case of
                                    Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and
                                    another(Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on
                                    07.10.2021).

                                    13. With the above observations/ directions, the present applicant under
                                    Section 528 BNSS is partly allowed.

                                                                                    (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)

                                    September 18, 2026
                                    Mustaqeem.




Digitally signed by :-
MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad