JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Arvind Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General appearing along with Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned Additional Government Advocate-I and Sri Arvind Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties.

2. The present application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed seeking to quash the chargesheet no. 19 of 2019 dated 30.05.2019 and cognizance order dated 27.08.2020 along with entire proceedings of Case No. 6772 of 2020 (State Vs. Dinesh Sharma and others) under Section 4, 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, [MMDR Act] read with Rules 3, 57, 70 of Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963[the Concession Rules] and Sections 379, 411 Indian Penal Code[the Penal Code], Police Station Chopan, District Sonebhadra arising out of Case Crime No. 274 of 2018 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonebhadra.

3. The principal ground which is sought to be raised in order to raise a challenge to the proceedings is that the provisions under Sections 21 and 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 would operate as a bar against initiation of proceedings by registration of an FIR in respect of allegations constituting offences under the Penal Code. It has been contended that the applicant cannot be prosecuted and punished for the same offence under two enactments namely the MMDR Act and the Indian Penal Code as the same would be barred by applying the rule against double jeopardy. It has been further urged that in respect of the offence, if at all committed, cognizance would have been taken under the MMDR Act, that too on the basis of a complaint to be filed under Section 22 by an authorized officer.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the bar under Section 22 of the Act would apply only in respect of offences punishable under the MMDR Act and not in respect of offences under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. He accordingly submits that the initiation of proceedings by lodging of an FIR cannot be said to be prohibited under law. Further submission is that the FIR having been lodged for distinct offences under the Penal Code and MMDR Act, there is no illegality in initiation of the criminal proceedings pursuant thereto. It is pointed out that the State Government has authorized all the District Magistrates/District Mines Officers, in the State of Uttar Pradesh, for the purposes of initiating prosecution under Section 22 of the MMDR Act and Rule 74 of the Concession Rules.

5. The question which thus falls for consideration is with regard to the scope and applicability of the bar contained under Section 22 of the MMDR Act and as to whether the provisions under the section would operate as a bar against initiation of proceedings also in respect of offences under the Penal Code. The other question would be as to what would be the stage when the Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance so as to attract the bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act.

6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, the relevant provisions under the MMDR Act may be adverted to, and the same are as follows :

“4. Prospecting or mining operations to be under licence or lease. (1) No person shall undertake any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting licence or, as the case may be, of a mining lease, granted under this Act and the rules made thereunder :

Provided that nothing in the subsection shall effect any prospecting or mining operations undertaken in any area in accordance with the terms and conditions of a prospecting licence or mining lease granted before the commencement of this Act which is in force at such commencement.

Provided further that nothing in this subsection shall apply to any prospecting operations undertaken by the Geologica