Vipul M. Pancholi, J.—By a very elaborate order of reference, the learned Single Judge has referred the following questions for consideration of a Division Bench:—

“(i) Whether Section 22 of the MMDR Act of 1957 read with Rule 56 of the Rules of 2019 may be interpreted so as to read a bar on lodging of the FIR alleging commission of offences of theft etc. under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code against a licensee in the matter of excavation of sand from the river beds from an area beyond or contrary to the mining plan and in violation of the Environment Clearance, on the face of Clause (v) under sub-rule(7) of Rule 56 and the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay and Jayant’s case.

(ii) Whether the alleged thieving sale of sand from the stock license point without issuing pre-paid EChallan and thereby causing huge revenue loss to the State Exchequer and unlawful gain to the petitioners may be subjected to an investigation by Police by way of a police case registered for the offences under Sections 379, 411, 406 and 420 IPC?

(iii) Whether the judgments of the learned co-ordinate Benches in the case of Mithilesh Kumar Singh (supra) and M/s Aditya Multicom Pvt. Limited vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Cr.W.J.C. no. 1233 of 2021 [: 2019 (2) BLJ 738]) are per incurium for not noticing the earlier judgment of a Bench of equal strength, hence not laying down a correct statement of law?”

2. The background of the reference may briefly be noted:

2.1. A batch of writ petitions were taken up together by the learned Single Judge. In all the writ petitions, the concerned petitioners have challenged the lodging of the FIRs under Section 379, and other provisions of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) as also for the alleged violation of Rule 11, 29(c), 36(3) and 56 and other Rules of the Bihar (Concessions, Prevention of illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 2019’) and Section 27 of the Minor Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MMDR Act, 1957’). The learned Single Judge, in para 2 of the order of reference dated 04.11.2022, has stated the allegations levelled in each of the FIRs, which are under challenge in the captioned writ petitions.

2.2. The basic contention on behalf of the petitioners in the writ petitions is that for the offences alleged under the MMDR Act and the Rules of 2019 an FIR under the penal provisions of IPC cannot be registered. Further, the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder are in the nature of Special Statutes, therefore, the violation of the provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules of 2019 are to be dealt only in accordance with the mechanism provided thereunder. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has mainly contended that the primary allegation against the petitioners is that of excavation beyond the Environment Clearance permitted area and transportation of sand without issuance of e-transit Challan. It is the contention of the petitioners that these allegations would be specifically covered under Rule 56(1) of the Rules of 2019 and the same shall be punishable under Section 56(2) of the said Rules and, therefore, the violation of the aforesaid cannot be treated as an offence punishable under Sections 379, 411, 406 or 420 IPC and, therefore, the FIR cannot be registered. It is also contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that Rule 61 of the Rules of 2019 provides that the offences under these rules shall be cognizable only upon a written complaint made in writing by the competent officer or any other officer empowered by the Government. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners have also placed reliance upon provisions contained in Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’) which defines “complaint” which means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking a