Complaints under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act must be filed by authorized officers, while dual prosecution under IPC and the MMDR Act is permissible when following proper procedures.

ORDER :

B.Pugalendhi, J.

The petitioner is an accused in Crime Nos.318 of 2021, 52 of 2022 & 53 of 2022 on the file of the Chindhamanipatti Police Station, Karur District, registered for the offence u/s.379 IPC & 21(1) of the Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act [hereinafter referred to as 'MMDR Act']. All these three cases have been registered at the instance of the respective second respondents / official from the Department of Geology and Mining on 13.11.2021 and 27.03.2022 respectively. The respondent Police has completed the investigation and also filed the final report, which are now taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kulithalai, in CC.Nos. 171, 217, 219 of 2023, respectively. The petitioner has filed these criminal original petitions to quash the charge sheet pending against him.

2.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the final reports have been filed as against the petitioner for the offence u/s.379 IPC and 21(1) of the MMDR Act. With regard to the offence under the MMDR Act, the law is settled in Sengol & Others v. Inspector of Police, R.S.Mangalam Police Station & Others [2012 (2) CTC 369] that the complaint has to be filed only by the authorised officer contemplated u/s.22 of the MMDR Act by way of a private complaint. He has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal & Another [1992 SCC (Crl.) 462].

3.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Government has authorised the Inspectors of Police and various other officials, as the authorised officer u/s.22 of the MMDR Act. Therefore, the Inspector of Police / first respondent is authorised to initiate the proceedings.

4.This Court considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

5.The prosecution case is that the petitioner has indulged in illegal quarrying and transportation of lime stone. The respective second respondent / official from the Directorate of Geology and Mining has found the same and also informed the first respondent Police. Accordingly, the first respondent Police registered the cases for the offence u/s.379 IPC and Section 22 (1) of the MMDR Act. After investigation, the first respondent Police has also filed the final reports for the offence u/s.379 IPC and (1) of the MMDR Act.

6.In Re Sengol's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has settled the law, with regard to filing of final report in a case registered under two enactments, as under:-

“46. In view of the foregoing discussions, we answer the questions referred to us as follows:

(i) Since, the offences under the Penal Code, 1860 involved in the cases before us and an offence under Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 are not the same offences in terms of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act will not exclude the provisions of IPC. Therefore, in respect of sand theft, it will be lawful for the police to register a case as provided in Section 154, Cr.P.C., under Section 379 and other relevant provisions of IPC, investigate the same as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to lay a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, upon which it will be well within the competence of the jurisdictional Magistrate to take cognizance. Therefore, such an FIR, where case has been registered only under the provisions of the Penal Code, 1860, shall not be liable to be quashed.

(ii) If an act of the Accused constitutes offences under Penal Code, 1860 as well as the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Developme