JUDGMENT Pankaj Bhandari, J. - Petitioners have preferred this Criminal Writ Petition aggrieved by the continuation of proceedings in F.I.R. No.382/2010 dated 18.12.2010 and against the order dated 11.10.2017 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Jhunjhunu, whereby application filed by the petitioners under Section 216 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. 2. In brief the factual matrix of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged on 18.12.2010, wherein it was mentioned that a blasting had taken place at the mines of Moda Pahad, Jhunjhunu, a fly rock from the mines of Petitioner No.1 hit at the head of the son of the complainant which resulted in his instant death. 3. Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet under Section 304 of I.P.C. Proceedings were initiated by Chief Mining Engineer by filing a complaint under Section 73, 72-B, 70, 72C(1)(a) of Mines Act, 1952. 4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that Mines Act being a special legislation, would prevail over the India Penal Code. For any violation of the Mines Act, if it results into death, the same is punishable under Section 72C (a) of the Mines Act, 1952, hence, India Penal Code would not apply. 5. It is contended that parallel proceedings under the Mines Act and Indian Penal Code cannot be continued against the petitioners, as the same would result in double jeopardy. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on " Arvind Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., (2015) 23 RCR(Criminal) 15 " & " Jullu Rehman vs. State of Jharkhand, (2002) 3 RCR(Criminal) 572 ." 7. Counsel for the complainant has opposed the Criminal Writ Petition. It is contended that petitioners had earlier challenged the order of framing of charge before the High Court which Revision Petition was dismissed and they were permitted to move application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. and the same also stands dismissed. 8. It is also contended that proceedings under the Mines Act and under the Indian Penal Code can continue at the same time. Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on " State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772 ," "Vinod Kumar Agarwal vs. State of Rajasthan" (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1009/2008) decided by the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur on 22.02.2013 & " Abdul Kalam Musalman & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan,2010 SCCOnline(Raj.) 4354 ". 9. Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on " State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772 ," "Vinod Kumar Agarwal vs. State of Rajasthan" (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1009/2008) decided by the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur on 22.02.2013 & " Abdul Kalam Musalman & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan,2010 SCCOnline(Raj.) 4354 ". 9. I have considered the contentions and have gone through the complaint filed by the Chief Mining Engineer as well as the F.I.R. 10. The contents of the F.I.R. and the complaint as far as occurrence is concerned, is similar. The question which needs adjudication before the Court is as to whether these are parallel proceedings and whether two proceedings can continue at the same time against an accused. 11. Section 304 of I.P.C. deals with punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and Section 304-A of I.P.C. deals with causing death by negligence. Petitioner has been charged for offence under Section 304 of I.P.C. and his application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. stands dismissed by the Court below and the said order is also under challenge before this Court. 12. In "Abdul Kalam Musalman & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan" (supra) this Court was dealing with the difference between Section 304 of I.P.C. and 304-A of I.P.C. in that case death was caused as the petitioner did not take certain security measures. The Court held that the offence would fall under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and not under Section 304 of I.P.C. 13. The present case does not fall within purview of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as death has not been caused with the intention of causing death or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with knowledge that it is likely to cause death and the case does not fall in the five exceptions given under Section 300 of I.P.C. The, case is clearly one where death has been caused by negligent act of the petitioner. 14. Section 72-C in the Mines Act, 1952 deals with provision for contravention of law with dangerous results. 14. Section 72-C in the Mines Act, 1952 deals with provision for contravention of law with dangerous results. As per Sub-Section (1A) of Section 72-C, whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or of any regulation, rule or bye-law or of any order made thereunder shall be punishable, if such contravention results in loss of life, with imprisonment which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both. 15. As per Section 304-A of I.P.C. causing death by negligence; Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 16. In the present case in hand, as per the complaint filed by Chief Mining Engineer, there is violation of Regulations 164 (1-A) (a) and (b) of the Metalliferous Mines Regulation, 1961 due to said violation death has resulted and presumption has been launched under Section 72-C of the Mines Act before the Competent Court by the Competent Officer of the Mines Department. The Mines Act covers in its ambit contravention of the provisions of the Act which has resulted into death. 17. Jharkhand High Court was dealing with a similar situation in "Arvind Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (supra) & "Jullu Rehman vs. State of Jharkhand" (supra) where the accident occurred during quarrying of stones. The Court quashed the proceedings under the Indian Penal Code as complaint had been filed under Section 72-C of the Act. 18. "State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Sanjay" (supra) cited by counsel for the complainant was a case where proceedings under the Mines Act and under Indian Penal Code were lodged against the accused. The Apex Court held that the ingredients constituting the offences are different and initiation of proceedings under MMDR Act cannot debar the Police from taking action against the persons for committing theft or illegal mining of sand minerals under the Penal Code. 19. "Vinod Kumar Agarwal vs. State of Rajasthan" (supra) was a case where the accused was acquitted in the complaint lodged under the Mines Act. 19. "Vinod Kumar Agarwal vs. State of Rajasthan" (supra) was a case where the accused was acquitted in the complaint lodged under the Mines Act. Court held that the trial of the petitioner in the case under the Mines Act was based on different facts and the witnesses cited in the said case had no personal knowledge about the accident which took place at the petitioner's stone quarry. Hence, the prosecution of the petitioner in that case cannot be said to be a double jeopardy. 20. Admittedly, there is violation of Regulations 164 (1-A) (a) and (b) of the Metalliferous Mines Regulation, 1961 death has resulted because of fly rock which has hit death at distance of 300 metre from the mining site, which has resulted in the instant death. Prosecution has been launched under Section 72-C of the Mines Act. The facts in the complaint as well as in the challan are akin, hence, continuation of proceedings under the Indian Penal Code would tantamount to abuse of process of Court and would result in double jeopardy, more particularly when there is special legislation, a person can be prosecuted only under the Special Act. 21. The judgment cited by the complainant do not apply to the facts of this case but that of the Jharkhand High Court have direct applicability to the facts of this case, hence, Criminal Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. 22. Proceedings pending before the Criminal Court under Section 304 of I.P.C. are quashed. 23. Stay application stands disposed.