The court emphasized the distinct nature of offences under the MMDR Act and the IPC, highlighting the interpretation of Section 22 of the MMDR Act and the ingredients constituting the offence of theft under Section 378 of the IPC.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nehal Gandhi appearing on behalf of Ms. Richa Shah learned advocate for the applicants and Learned APP Ms. Maithili Mehta for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. By way of the present application the applicant herein has prayed to quash and set aside the Criminal Case No. 501 of 2014 pending before the Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad arising out of the FIR being I-C.R. No. 116 of 2014 registered with the Isanpur Police Station, Ahmedabad.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Nehal Gandhi for the applicants submitted that as there was very heavy rain on 23.07.2014 in Ahmedabad and as per the instruction given by the customer, instead of unloading the ordinary sand on 23.07.2014 in morning hours, the applicant No. 1 was instructed to load the ordinary sand on intervening night hours between 23.07.2014 and 24.07.2014. It is submitted that on 23.07.2014 at about 11:30 p.m. the complainant/ respondent No. 2 stopped the dumper and without asking anything to the applicant No. 1 and/or without inquiring about the valid transport permit, without giving opportunity for producing the royalty pass the applicant No. 1 was arrested by the Police authority.

4. The applicant No. 1-original accused No. 1, is the driver of the vehicle in question and the applicant No. 2-accused No. 2, is the owner of the said vehicle. An FIR came to be lodged on 24.07.2014 by the respondent No. 2 with the Isanpur Police Station, Ahmedabad being I-C.R. No. 116 of 2014 for offences punishable under Sections 379 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, on 21.09.2014 the investigating officer filed charge-sheet in the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. On 24.07.2014, the respondent No. 2 filed a report to add Section 4(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short “MMDR Act”) and Sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Gujarat Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2005.

5. The respondent No. 2 in the said complaint dated 24.07.2014 has alleged that on 24.07.2014 the complainant received information that one Tata Dumper bearing RTO Registration No. GJ-18-AU-8705 was containing sand without there being any royalty pass and which was going to pass from Bhiravnath Cross Roads. It is further alleged in the FIR that the complainant had called for Panch witnesses and the police personnel were in watch for the Tata Dumper. It is also alleged in the FIR that thereafter, the Tata Dumper was made to stop by the Police authority and upon asked for producing necessary royalty pass, the applicant No. 1 denied for the same and under such circumstances, the said FIR came to be lodged which culminated into charge-sheet on 21.09.2014, wherein, the provisions of the MMDR Act and the Gujarat Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules came to be added.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid the applicants herein have approached this Court by filing the present application seeking quashing of the Criminal Case No. 501 of 2014 pending before the Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad arising out of the FIR being I-C.R. No. 116 of 2014 registered with the Isanpur Police Station, Ahmedabad and the consequential proceedings thereof.

7. At this stage, before entering into the merits of the matter, it is apposite to refer to the position of law, wherein, it is held that in respect of a complaint for contravention of the provisions of Section 4 and other Sections of the MMDR Act, the officer empowered and authorized under the Act shall exercise all powers including filing of complaint before the Jurisdictional Magistrate.

8. It is apposite to refer to the position of law laid down by this Court in case of Manjulaben Ramniklal Thanki vs. State of Gujarat, 2019 (3) GLR 1786, wherein it is held thus:

“(8) At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State (NCT of Del