The court clarified that cognizance under mining regulations requires an authorized complaint, while extortion allegations under IPC can proceed without such a complaint.

JUDGMENT :

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)

1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by the petitioner, praying for quashing of the order of cognizance, dated 26th of September, 2017, passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in connection with Digha P. S. Case No. 60 of 2017, T.R. No. 3046 of 2017 (Corresponding to G. R. No. 1868 of 2017), whereby and whereunder cognizance was taken under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 4 and 40 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 and Sections 3 and 4 of Bihar Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2003.

2. Digha P. S. Case No. 60 of 2017 was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by one Pappu Kumar that two boats of mixed red sand were being uplifted without any pollution certificate having been granted in his name, and capacity of each boat is approximately about 1600 cft. to 2200 cft. and 600 cft. to 1200 cft., respectively, at the instance of one Sajay Singh, receiving Rs. 500/-to Rs. 1,000/-per boat as rangdari. The informant also alleged that after receiving the said information, he along with his 5 to 6 employees, went to the place from where the minor mineral was being extracted and saw 10 to 20 persons engaged in each boat, loading sand from the said spot. Seeing assembly of large number of people, he could not resist the miscreants. He also saw 6 to 7 boats, waiting there. However, the informant with his employees managed to catch hold of 3 persons and brought them to Digha Police Station. He also informed the matter to the Assistant Director of the Department. After some time, the Officer Incharge, Digha Police Station and the Assistant Director went to the spot. On the basis of the said information, the police registered Digha P. S. Case No. 60 of 2017, dated 18th of March, 2017 under the aforesaid penal provisions.

3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that there is no allegation to the effect that he was engaged in illegal mining, transportation and storage of sand from the place of occurrence. Therefore, Rules 4 and 40 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 and Rules 3 and 4 of the Bihar Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2003 are not attracted against the petitioner.

4. It is also alleged by the petitioner that one Broadson Commodities Private Limited, without obtaining no objection certificate from Pollution Control Board, in connivance of the Mining Officers was engaged in illegal trade of minor minerals. Complaints were lodged against the said company by the near relatives of the petitioner. As a result, the aforesaid Pappu Kumar lodged false complaint against the petitioner.

5. It is further alleged by the petitioner that the Mining Development Officer instituted a criminal case on 5th of April, 2017, which was registered as Patliputra P. S. Case No. 109 of 2017, under Sections 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 4 and 40 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 and Sections 3 and 4 of Bihar Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2003, against the aforesaid Pappu Kumar. The petitioner also came to know through a reply obtained under the Right to Information Act that the place of occurrence from where sand was extracted was not settled with Pappu Kumar during the period 2015-2019.

6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that police submitted a purported charge-sheet in Digha P. S. Case No. 60 of 2017 without considering the fact that no charge-sheet can be submitted for any offence under the Mines and Minerals Act or the Rules framed thereunder, except on a complaint filed by the authorized officer. Therefore, the order of cognizance is bad and, accordingly, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance taken on the basis of the charge-sheet filed in Digha P. S. Case No. 60 of 2017.

7. Th