ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6 to 9 and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following reliefs:

“i) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing Dehri(Town) P.S. Case No.407 of 2021 registered on 03.08.2021 for alleged offences under section 379, 411, 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Rule 39(2), 39(3) and 56(2) of the Bihar Mineral (Concession, Prevention of illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019 on the ground that the same is completely illegal and without any authority of law.

(ii) To issue further appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents 1st Set not to take any coercive steps against the Petitioner in pursuance of Dehri (Town) P.S. Case no.407 of 2021.

(iii) This Hon’ble Court may adjudicate and hold that no cognizable offence is made out against the Petitioner as per the contents of First Information Report and therefore the Petitioner cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution.

(iv) To award the cost of litigation and suitable compensation to the petitioner for the loss and damages caused to the petitioner.

(v) To grant/award any other relief or reliefs which the Petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not going into the details of the case of the parties in view of the fact that there is no dispute that the present case is fully covered by the judgment in the case of Mithilesh Kumar Singh versus State of Bihar [2019 (6) BLJ 149]. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment in the case of Mithilesh Kumar Singh (supra) is being quoted hereinbelow for ready reference:

“33.Section 22 of the MMDR Act reads as under :-"22. Cognizance of offences.--No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunder except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government."

34. A similar provision is contained under Rule 41 of the Rules of 1972, which reads as under :-

"41. Offence cognizable upon written complaints. -No Court inferior to that of a Magistrate of the First Class shall try any offence punishable under these rules and no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under these rules, except upon a complaint made in writing by the [Competent Officer or Deputy Director of Mines or Additional Director of Mines or Director of Mines] or any other Officer empowered by the Government".

35. In the instant case, the FIR has been registered by the Mines Inspector contrary to the requirements of Section 22 of the MMDR Act and Rule 41 of the 1972 Rules.

36. For the offence alleging violation of any provisions of the MMDR Act or any rules made thereunder, an FIR cannot be instituted rather a complaint in writing has to be made by a person authorized in this behalf.

………………………………………………

43. In State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Sanjay (Supra), the Supreme Court observed as under :-

"71. However, there may be situation where a person without any lease or licence or any authority enters into river and extracts sands, gravels and other minerals and remove or transport those minerals in a clandestine manner with an intent to remove dishonestly those minerals from the possession of the State, is laible to be punished for committing such offence under Section 378 and 793 of the Indian Penal Code.

72. From a close reading of the provisions of the MMDR Act and the offence defined under Section 378 IPC, it is manifest that the ingredients constituting the offence are different. The contravention of terms and conditions of mining lease or doing mining activity in violation of Section 4 of the Act is an offence punishable under Section 21 of the MMDR Act, whereas dishonestly removing sand, gravel and other minerals from the river, which is the p