ORDER :

1. Heard Ms. Kruti M. Shah, learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP Ms. Maithili Mehta for the respondent No.1-State.

2. By way of the present application the applicant herein has prayed for the following reliefs :

“9(A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

(B) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR C.R. No. I – 14/2016 registered at Vinchhiya Police Station, District Rajkot Rural, on 30.03.2016 for the offence U/s. 379 of IPC, Rule 3, 5 and 6 of Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2005 and Rule 4 and 21 of Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957.

(C) Pending admission, final hearing and disposal of the present petition, stay the further proceedings of FIR C.R. No. I – 14/2016 registered at Vinchhiya Police Station, District Rajkot Rural, on 30.03.2016 for the offence U/s. 379 of IPC, Rule 3, 5 and 6 of Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2005 and Rule 4 and 21 of Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957.

(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant any other and further relief/s, as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice.”

3. Briefly stated, it is the case of the applicant herein that on 16.03.2016 at about 5:40 a.m., the complainant alongwith Investigating team was going for checking near Gauraiya Village, Sukhbadar River, as per the complaint received by the Vigilance Commissioner, and, at that time, near Amrapur Village, the driver of the Dumper No. GJ-13-W-8585 was found transporting 12 metric ton simple sand without any royalty pass and therefore the vehicle was seized and kept at Vinchhiya Police Station. It was further stated that Rs.30,000/- to be recovered as penalty. The aforesaid complaint is duly produced at Annexure “A”.

4. Ms. Kruti Shah, learned advocate for the applicant has vehemently submitted that as per the provisions of Rule 14 of Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2005 , the offence punishable under the rules is compoundable, and if the offence is compounded then there is a provision that the criminal proceedings may not be further proceeded with. Learned advocate for the applicant further submitted that the applicant herein is ready to pay the penalty of Rs.30,000/-.

5. It appears that pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, this Court directed the applicant herein to deposit Rs.30,000/- by an order dated 19.04.2016. It has been stated by learned advocate for the applicant that the amount of Rs.30,000/- has been duly deposited by the applicant herein. It has been further stated by learned advocate for the applicant that, as per Rule 17(2) of the said Rules, when the offender is agrees in righting to get the offence compounded then only the property seized may be produced before the authorised officer. In the present case the said opportunity of compounding the offence has not been given and directly the FIR is lodged.

6. 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 in 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 Delhi) Vs. Sanjay (supra), wherein the Apex while examining the provision of section 22 and section 4 of the MMDR Act has observed thus:

“69. Considering the principles of interpretation and the wordings used in Section 22, in our considered opinion, the provision is not a complete and absolute bar for taking action by the police for illegal and dishonestly committing theft of minerals including sand from the riverbed. The Court shall take judicial notice of the fact that over the years rivers in India have been affected by the alarming rate of unrestricted sand mining which is damaging the ecosystem of the rivers and safety of bridges. It al