Madhusudan Singh vs. State Of U.P. And Another

This matter is being taken up in the date fixed category.

Supplementary affidavit preferred at the behest of learned counsel for applicant in Court is taken on record.

Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State.

Although notice which was issued earlier has already been served upon opposite party no.2, in spite of that, no one appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 even in the revised call either in person or through counsel. It is the moral and judicial obligation of any person to appear before the Court for contesting the matter against whom notices was issued and thereafter served. In case of non-appearance of opposite party no.2 after service of notice, there is no option left before the Court, but to consider the prayer so made through the instant application on the basis of material available on record as well as the arguments so made by learned counsel for the applicant.

The instant application has been preferred for seeking quashing of the 105 BNS, P.S. Obra, District- Sonbhadra, including charge-sheet dated 15.02.2026 and cognizance/summoning order dated 20.03.2026b passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra.

Brief facts of the case are that an FIR dated 16.11.2025 has been lodged at Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Madhusudan Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)

Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case only on account of the fact that he is one of the owners of the said Mining company where the unfortunate incident has been occurred, otherwise there is hardly any allegations made in the FIR against the applicant, which corroborates him with the alleged offence. Learned counsel for applicant sought the attention of Court over the registered lease deed dated 31.05.2016 (Annexure No.3 of the instant application), wherein it is clearly transpired that after following the due procedure, the Government of Uttar Pradesh granted mining lease in respect of the said Mining company by way of giving patta of certain land where the mining is going on, for the period of 31.05.2016 to 30.05.2026, and as such the allegation in respect of not following the mining standards/procedure by the said partnership firm is totally illegal and unjustified, since from 31.05.2016 till 15.11.2025 i.e. for more than nine years mining work was going in a proper manner by following all the guidelines and safety measures and thereafter the same is not in proper manner just because an unfortunate incident occurred. The other necessary procedures for running a mining company in shape of GST registration, certificate of Uttar Pradesh Control Board, insurance police etc. has also been followed, which has been appended with the records of instant application. Learned counsel for applicant lastly submitted that there is hardly any allegations against the applicant in respect of offence under section 105 BNS against the applicant, then under which circumstances the charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant, upon which cognizance of offence has been taken up by learned court concerned, which has been done in a most mechanical manner and as such the same is liable to be quashed by this Court.

In addition to above, learned counsel for applicant submits that the said partnership firm also took a Policy Schedule for Employees Compensation Insurance for the working labourers, which itself demonstrates that the firm was conscious of labour welfare and compensation in accordance with law. With regard to the query made by this Court in respect of financial compensation to the dependent/family members of the persons, who died in the alleged incident, learned counsel for applicant sought the attention of Court over the supplementary affidavit, wherein para-5 clearly transpires that the said owners association gave Rs.5 lakh to each family of the members who died in the alleged incident and Rs.13 lakhs has also given by the applicant himself to the family member/dependent of deceased, which has been corroborated from para-2, 3 and 4 of the supplementary affidavit.

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through instant application, but at the same he could not dispute the above facts as made by learned counsel for applicant as well as the fact that applicant and the said firm have been done at their level best in a bona fide manner to the family members/dependent of the deceased of unfortunate incident and compensated them in very fair manner.

After having rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the arguments raised by learned counsel for applicant seems to be justified, since there is hardly any ingredients which can convict/implicate the applicant in pursuance to section 105 BNS, which has been defined as culpable homicide not amounting to murder and there is no role of the applicant in the alleged incident as per the definition of section 105 BNS, the said incident is only to be tested on the touchstone of negligence alone. From perusal of certain documents appended along with instant application, it is crystal clear that the allegation against the applicant in respect of not following the proper procedure for mining company is totally vague and malicious. Instead of the above legal reasoning, the Court cannot neglect the bona fide of the applicant, who through his partnership firm as well as in his personal capacity has compensated all the family members/dependent of the deceased, who died in an unfortunate incident and the same has been demonstrated through supplementary affidavit preferred at the behest of applicant.

In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, the 105 BNS, P.S. Obra, District- Sonbhadra, including charge-sheet dated 15.02.2026 and cognizance/summoning order dated 20.03.2026b passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra, are hereby quashed, in respect of applicant herein.

Accordingly, the instant application is allowed. September 16, 2026 Saif (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad