ORDER :

1. Heard Sri Kripa Shankar Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mahipal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ratan Singh alongwith Sri Vibhav Ojha, learned AGA for the State.

2. Present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the first information report dated 28.04.2023, arising out of case crime no.85 of 2023, under sections 379, 411 IPC and Section 4/21 Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Police Station Nagina Dehat, District Bijnor. Further, the petitioners are seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to take appropriate action/departmental inquiry against the responsible respondents, who were involved in the proceeding of seizing of the vehicles concern as well as false arresting of said drivers in pursuance of the impugned first information report.

3. Sole submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in view of Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to 'MMDR Act') the FIR could not have been registered as it provides that only a complaint could have been lodged by the authorized person.

4. In support, it is submitted that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on this ground itself in the same case crime no.85 of 2023 has granted interim order vide order dated 29.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.7806 of 2023 (Kalyan Singh and 8 Others vs. State of U.P. and 18 Others). The said interim order reads as under:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This writ petition has been preferred to quash the First Information Report dated 28.4.2023 being Case Crime No.85 of 2023, under Sections 379, 411 and 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957, Police Station Nagina, District Bijnor with a further prayer not to arrest the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 has stated that the First Information Report itself could not have been registered.

4. Matter requires consideration.

5. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3. Issue notice to respondent no.4 by registered post. Steps may be taken within ten days. At this stage, we are not issuing notices to respondent nos.5 to 19.

6. Respondent nos.1 to 4 may file their counter affidavits within a period of three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

7. List thereafter.

8. Until further orders, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners."

(Emphasis Supplied)

5. It is further submitted that no cognizance can be taken by the Magistrate as per Clause 21(4) of the paragraph 21 of the judgment rendered in Jayant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2021) 2 SCC 670.

6. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the first information report and submits that the present first information report is clearly maintainable in view of the judgment of Jayant (supra).

7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the records. Interestingly, both sides have placed reliance on law laid down in Jayant (supra).

8. Shorn of details facts as contained in the FIR are that on 28.04.2023 at 11:35 pm, the respondent No.4 lodged first information report against unknown persons. It is alleged in the first information report that the complainant came to Police Station-Nagina Dehat for prevention of illegal mining. He accompanied by the Station House Officer of concerned Police Station alongwith other police personnels reached at Kho river on 28.04.2023 at 08:15 pm. The complainant found that continuous illegal mining was being done. Some JCBs, dumpers, and tractor were found on the spot, drivers whereof ran away from the spot after seeing the Police team. 11 dumpers were found on the spot of which 8 dumpers were full of minerals and 3 dumpers were empty and 6 tractors trolley wer