IMPORTANT POINT
FIR is maintainable in mining offences.

JUDGMENT

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.—Heard Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 374/2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 3513/2017, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 175 /379 /414 /420 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 21A 21(6) and 22 of the M.M.D.R., Act, Rule 54 & 4 of the J.M.M.C., Rules.

3. The prosecution case arising out of the First Information Report is that on 08.12.2017 a raiding team was constituted with respect to illegal extraction and transportation of sand and during the course of raid two trucks were apprehended bearing registration nos. BR 01 GC 4796 and JH 02 M 1153, loaded with 1000 CFT of sand each. It has been alleged that on demand no paper could be produced and which ultimately led to institution of Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 374/2017.

4. It has been submitted by Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are the owner of the trucks which were under the supervision and custody of the drivers and merely on account of being the owner the petitioners have been implicated in the criminal case. It has further been submitted that so far as Section 22 of the MMDR, Act is concerned only a complaint can be instituted in terms of Section 2(d) of the code of criminal procedure and there being no provision for institution of a First Information Report the criminal proceedings as against the petitioners deserves to be quashed and set aside. It has further been submitted that the sand mines at Bagodih Kheron under plot no 2630 measuring an area of 5.26 hectares of land has been settled in favour of one Pradeep Kumar Saw in the year 2016 and pursuant to the said settlement a deed was executed between the said Pradeep Kumar Saw and the State Government. Learned counsel further submits that the sands was purchased from Pradeep Kumar Saw who had a valid lease for mining sand and the sand was transported under valid documents from the leasehold area of Pradeep Kumar Saw. Learned counsel therefore submits that the entire transaction was genuine and valid and as such the petitioners being the owner of the trucks cannot be hauled up in a criminal proceedings.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners.

6. It is to be noted herein that the petitioners have approached this Court at the very initial stage of the institution of the case and since the investigation is underway the documents or the plea of the petitioners which has been raised before this Court cannot be looked into at this stage as the same is a subject matter of investigation.

7. Moreover the defence documents cannot be considered in an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., more so when investigation has not yet concluded.

8. So far as the plea of the petitioners with respect to no case being made out under the MMDR, Act, in view of the fact that under Section 22 of the MMDR, Act a complaint is maintainable such contention is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State (NCT of Delhi) versus Sanjay” reported in (2014) 9 SCC 772. The relevant part of the order is quoted herein under:

“61. Reading the provisions of the Act minutely and carefully, prima facie we are of the view that there is no complete and absolute bar in prosecuting persons under the Penal Code where the offences committed by persons are penal and cognizable offence.

62. Sub-section (1-A) of Section 4 of the MMDR Act puts a restriction in transporting and storing any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. In other words no person will do mining activity without a valid lease or licence. Section 21 is a penal provision according to which if a person contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1-A) of S