The judgment establishes the principle that for offences under the MMDR Act, a written complaint by an authorized person is required, and the special law does not bar the police from registering and investigating offences under the IPC.

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.-Heard Mr. Siddharth learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Bishunpur P.S. Case No. 22 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. No. 486 of 2002 including the order dated 18.06.2003, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla has been pleased to take cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 21 of the Mines, and Minerals (Development & Regulation) (MMDR) Act, 1957.

3. The prosecution story as would appear from the First Information Report (FIR) instituted by the Assistant Mining Officer, Gumla (opposite party No. 2 herein) is that the informant found in course of inspection that illegal mining of bauxite was being carried on by some persons. It is alleged that seeing the informant party, the workers engaged in illegal mining activities fled away and at the place of occurrence 20 M.T. and 40 M.T. of bauxite was found. It is also said that two local persons have stated that Md. Makbul Ahmad Khan and Md. Azibul were committing illegal mining activities and that the petitioner used to purchase the bauxite and transport it to the railways siding, Meral of M/s. HINDALCO Industries, Renukut.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, Bishunpur P.S. Case No. 22 of 2002 was instituted and on investigation the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner., pursuant to which cognizance was taken for the offence under Section 379, IPC and Section 21 of the MMDR Act by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla vide order dated 18.6.2003.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the criminal prosecution instituted against the petitioner is false and concocted inasmuch as the petitioner is the lessee of the premises from which illegal mining was said to have been carried out which would be evident from the deed of indenture made on 9.11.1999 and which has been appended as Annexure-2 to the main application. He has further submitted that the Assistant Mining Officer (opposite party No.2) did not have any jurisdiction to institute an F.I.R., as Section 22 of the MMDR Act precludes any Court from taking cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act except upon a complaint in writing and in absence of a complaint having been filed by the opposite party No.2, the present case is liable to be quashed. He has further submitted that the persons who had stated about the illegal mining carried on by Md. Makbul Ahmad Khan and Md. Azibul in course of examination under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr PC) have stated otherwise.

6. The learned counsel for the State on the other hand has submitted that the F.I.R. clearly discloses an offence against the petitioner and after a thorough investigation charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused persons including the petitioner pursuant to which cognizance was taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 18.6.2003. He further submits that a case under Section 21 of the MMDR Act, 1957 and under Section 379, IPC is clearly made out as against the petitioner.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, I find that the Assistant Mining Officer, opposite party No.2 herein had filed an F.I.R. for the offence punishable under Section 21 of the MMDR Act and under Section 379, IPC. Section 22 of the MMDR Act deals with cognizance of offences and the same 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."

8. Therefore, Section 22 specifically envisages about filing