Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
Mujeeb Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Omar Zamin, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri O.N. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. Present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been preferred for quashing the charge-sheet No.872 of 2020 dated 15.09.2020, cognizance/ summoning order dated 1.4.2024 as well as entire proceeding of Case No.904 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.805 of 2020, under Sections 379 , 411 I.P.C., Rules 3, 57, 7 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 and Sections 4 , 21 of U.P. Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Police Station Naini, District Prayagraj, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-15, Prayagraj.
3. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged by the first informant, Yogesh Shukla, against the applicant and two others on 18.08.2020, registered as Case Crime No.805 of 2020, under Section 379 IPC , Sections 4 / 21 of U.P. Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1957'), and Rules 3/7/57 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1963'). As per version of the FIR, the first info
Cognizance for offences under mining statutes requires a written complaint by an authorized officer; IPC cognizance valid if essential theft elements are met.
The court emphasized the distinct nature of offences under the MMDR Act and the IPC, highlighting the interpretation of Section 22 of the MMDR Act and the ingredients constituting the offence of thef....
Cognizance for offenses under the MMDR Act requires an authorized officer's complaint, not a police report; theft allegations fail when removal is from one's own land for agricultural purposes.
Cognizance of offences under the MMDR Act requires a complaint from an authorized person; without it, proceedings cannot be sustained.
Police lack authority to investigate under the Mines and Minerals Act without a complaint from an authorized person, reaffirming the necessity of compliance with statutory provisions.
The conviction for illegal quarrying under Sections 379 IPC and Section 3(1) TNPPDL Act was upheld due to sufficient evidence, while the overlap of charges under various laws does not invalidate pros....
Point of Law : Cognizance and trial cannot be set aside unless the illegality in the investigation can be shown to have brought about mis-carriage of justice.
The legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of specific allegations and evidence against an individual in criminal cases, especially in cases involving a corporate entity, and the ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
