Cognizance of offences under the Mines and Minerals Act requires a complaint from authorized personnel; proceeding based on an FIR is not valid.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. 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 the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Ranga P.S. Case No. 109 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 522 of 2023 including the order taking cognizance dated 04.03.2024, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal in connection with the said Ranga P.S. Case No. 109 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 522 of 2023 whereby and where under the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 21(1) & 21(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rule 4/54 of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 read with Rule 13 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017.

3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners abandon the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding so far as the offence punishable under Section 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned and only confine their prayer to quash the portion of the order dated 04.03.2024 so far as it relates to the cognizance of the offences punishable under the penal provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the penal provisions under the Rules made thereunder are concerned.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the Judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case ofManish Khemka Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2009 (2) JLJR 720 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench taking note of Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 which is a special law providing for a particular manner of cognizance of the offences under the said Act or any Rules made thereunder i.e. a complaint to be made by the person authorized on behalf by the Central Government or State Government, held that prosecution in respect of the offences punishable under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder, not by way of complaint but by way of information to the police is illegal and quashed the same.

5. In this respect, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon another Judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case ofCalcutta Jaipur Paribahan Private Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2009 (3) JLJR 78. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that to the same effect is the Judgment passed in the case ofHare Kant Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another reported in 2015 (1) JLJR 717 and to the same effect is the Judgment passed by another Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case ofMahendra Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2015 (3) JLJR 64 . Hence, it is submitted that the modified prayer as prayed for and mentioned in the foregoing paragraph of this judgement be allowed.

6. The learned counsel for the State has no serious objection so far as the prayer for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding only in respect of the offences punishable under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1956 and the Rules made thereunder is concerned. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the State, that there is no illegality so far as the prosecution of the petitioners in respect of the offences pu