The court emphasized the requirement of a separate complaint by an authorized person for initiating proceedings under the MMDR Act and KMMC Act, and distinguished the offenses under the MMDR Act and Section 379 of IPC.

H.P. SANDESH, J.

1. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Addl. SPP for the respondent-state.

2. The factual matrix of this case is that on 09.06.2018 at 17.00 hours the complainant on receiving credible information about extracting of sand and dumping in the tempo illegally at Malaprabha river near Lakkebail village, the complainant along with staff and panchas at 9.45 am reached the spot and while one tempo was coming from Malaprabha river the complainant and staff signaled to stop the vehicle but driver of the vehicle stopped the vehicle and tried to escape from the spot. However, he was caught hold of him and on enquiry he told his name as Basavaraj Gangaram Andhare of Lakkebail village and he was transporting the sand in the vehicle. On enquiry he revealed that he does not have any permit or pass from the Government for transporting the sand and hence the same was seized including the vehicle. Thereafter, the case has been registered for the offence under Section 4(1A), 21, 22 of Mines and Minerals Regulation of Development Act, and Rule 3, 32, 44 of KMMC Act and Section 379 of IPC.

3. The main contention of the petitioner in this case is that he has not committed any offence as alleged against him and there is a bar under Section 22 of MMDR Act, 1957 and KMMC Rules and the complainant suo moto registered the case and invoked the offences under the MMDR Act and Rules. The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in between State of Delhi Vs State of Gujarat and Another, (2015) AIR SC 75 with Malubhai Shalabhai Rabari & Others Vs State of Gujarat & Others with Kalubhai Khachar Vs State of Gujarat & Another, wherein it is held that there is bar to take cognizance and only on a private complaint file by the authorized officer the Court can take the cognizance. Hence, the petition is liable to be quashed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also reiterated the grounds urged in the petition and contended that the very complainant is not an authorized person and he cannot invoke Sections 4(1A) and other offences under the MMDR Act and hence the proceedings initiated against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP appearing for the respondent State contends that PSI has registered the case on credible information and further contends that in order to invoke the offence under MMDR Act, the authorized officer has to file the complaint before the Magistrate and under Section 22 of MMDR Act, the Court can take cognizance in respect of the offences under Section MMDR Act. However, the complainant registered for the offence under Section 379 of IPC cannot be quashed in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in State (NCT of Delhi) Vs Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772. Hence, prayed this Court only to consider the offence with regard to MMDR Act and Rules and not for the offence under Section 379 of IPC.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. SPP for respondent State, this Court has to examine whether this Court can exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

7. The factual matrix of the case is that on 09.06.2018 on credible information a search was conducted and petitioner was transporting the sand in the tempo illegally at Malaprabha river. Hence, the case has been registered for the aforesaid offences. The main ground urged in the petition is that the complainant does not have any power to initiate the proceedings under MMDR Act and further contended that Section 22 of the said act, only the Court can take cognizance if any complaint is filed by the authorized person on behalf of the Central Government or the State Government.

8. Before adverting to the facts of the case, I would like to refer the proviso of Section 22 of Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957, which reads as follows:

"22. Cognizance of offences.- no Court shall take cognizance of