JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of FIR No.178 dated 25.10.2017 registered under Section 21(1) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter 'MMDR Act') at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar (Rural) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Succinctly, the facts are that the petitioner is the owner of 10-12 acres of land in village Chhana, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar. The Authorised Officer (Mining), Ajanala marked a complaint regarding illegal supply of sand to the SHO from the Mining Officer, Block Ajanala. On reaching the spot, the police party found instances suggesting illegal supply of sand however, no mining was seen. A varma (machine used to mine sand in water), belonging to the petitioner, was found on the said land.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Baldev Singh Sirsa is a social activist and has filed multiple petitions regarding illegal mining of sand, illegal occupation of panchayat land, plight of sugarcane farmers etc. Due to the nature of his work, he was falsely implicated in FIR No.77 dated 31.05.2015 registered at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar. The matter was duly enquired into by DSP (Investigation), Amritsar (Rural) and the husband of the petitioner was found innocent. The land adjoining the land of the petitioner was being illegally mined because of which, she could not use it and suffered loss. The petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of mesne profits and damages against the State as well as some private individuals for this reason.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the MMDR Act specifically provides that no Court can take cognizance of an offence under this Act, other than on a written complaint to the Court by the authorized officer, as such, the FIR could not have been registered in the first place. A perusal of the FIR (Annexure P-1) itself would indicate that the police did not witness any illegal mining happening on the said land.

5. Short reply dated 15.03.2024 by way of an affidavit of Raj Kumar, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Ajnala, Amritsar (Rural) on behalf of respondent No.1-State has been filed and the same is taken on record.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the police party did not find any instances of illegal mining from the spot visit and only a varma, allegedly belonging to the petitioner, was found parked on the spot, which in itself does not establish commission of an offence. Further, the Court is barred from taking cognizance of commission of an offence under Section 22 of the MMDR Act, except if a complaint in writing is made on behalf of the Central Government or the State Government. For proper disposal of the case at hand, it is pertinent to discuss Sections 21 and 22 of the MMDR Act which read as follows:

21. Penalties - (1) Whoever contravenes the provisions of subsection (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare of the area.

(2) Any rule made under any provision of this Act may provide that any contravention thereof shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both, and in the case of a continuing contravention, with additional fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees for every day during which such contravention continues after conviction for the first such contravention.

(3) Where any person trespasses into any land in contravention of the provisions of subsection (1) of section 4, such trespasser may be served with an order of eviction by the State Government or any a