Cognizance of offences under the Mines Act requires a written complaint by an authorized person.

By the Court:- 

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with twofold prayers but at the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner do not press the prayer to quash and set aside the FIR of Nawalshahi P.S. Case No.71 of 2022 but only confines his prayer to quash the order taking cognizance dated 11.09.2023 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Koderma whereby and whereunder the learned JMFC, Koderma has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

3. Accordingly, the prayer to quash and set aside the FIR of Nawalshahi P.S. Case No.71 of 2022 is rejected as not pressed.

4. The brief fact of the case is that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in illegal mining of stones in his vehicle without any lease/license for mining. On the basis of written report submitted by the District Mining Officer, Koderma police registered Nawalshahi P.S. Case No.71 of 2022 and took up investigation of the case and after completion of investigation police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 only vide order dated 11.09.2023 in Nawalshahi P.S. Case No.71 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No.897 of 2023.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Nava Kishor Singhdeo @ Nav Kishor Singhdeo vs. State of Jharkhand passed in Cr.M.P. No.2763 of 2023 dated 24.01.2024, submits that this Court in that case taking note of Section 22 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 which reads as under:-

“Mines and minerals (Development and regulation Act 1957

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.”

Quashed the entire criminal proceeding because cognizance was taken of the offences punishable under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the rules made thereunder without the complaint in writing being made by the person authorised.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jayant & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and allied cases reported in (2021) 2 SCC 670 paragraph no. 21.4 of which reads as under:-

21.4. That in respect of violation of various provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder, when a Magistrate passes an order under Section 156(3) of the Code and directs the In- charge/SHO of the police station concerned to register/lodge the crime case/FIR in respect of the violation of various provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and thereafter after investigation the In-charge of the police station/investigating officer concerned submits a report, the same can be sent to the Magistrate concerned as well as to the authorised officer concerned as mentioned in Section 22 of the MMDR Act and thereafter the authorised officer concerned may file the complaint before the learned Magistrate along with the report submitted by the investigating officer concerned and thereafter it will be open for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance after following due procedure, issue process/summons in respect of the violations of the various provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder and at that stage it can be said that cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate.” (Emphasis suppli