The court clarified that cognizance cannot be taken under the MMDR Act without a written complaint, but police can act on theft under IPC independently.

ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being CR. I No.74 of 2015 registered with Mansa Police Station for the offences under Sections 379, 114 of Indian Penal Code read with sections 3, 5, 8 & 13 of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2005 and under Section 4(1- A) and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Brief facts of the case is as under :-

2.1. The petitioners are engaged in the business of transportation of minerals and are owners of trucks bearing registration numbers GJ-18-AU-8719, GJ-18-AU-8713, and GJ-

24-AV-3965 respectively. On 10.06.2015, their vehicles were found transporting ordinary sand within the territorial limits of Gandhinagar District. It is the case of the petitioners that, due to internet connectivity issues at mining sites, royalty passes are often issued after loading the mineral at a location where internet is available, and this practice is a routine and well-

established one.

2.2. A raid was conducted by the Flying Squad of the OfÏce of the Additional Director, and the vehicles of the petitioners were seized under the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2005, alleging illegal excavation and transportation. Despite petitioners' willingness to execute bond and compound the offence as per Rule 18 of the said Rules, their request was not considered for a considerable time. After more than 40 days, an FIR came to be lodged at Mansa Police Station on 22.07.2015, invoking Sections 379 and 114 of the IPC, Rules 3, 5, 6, 8, and 13 of the 2005 Rules, and Sections 4(1-A) and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 .

2.3. The petitioners contend that they were unaware of any illegal excavation at the site, as the drivers were only responsible for transporting the loaded mineral and were under the bona fide belief that valid royalty passes would be issued as per usual practice. They further contend that it is arbitrary and unjust to hold them liable for transportation of 5668 metric tonnes of sand, which would require around 300 trips, without any detection by the authorities. It is their grievance that the authorities are targeting vehicle owners rather than the actual culprits responsible for illegal excavation, and that the impugned FIR is devoid of basic ingredients of the alleged offences and hence deserves to be quashed.

3. Learned advocate Mr. D.N. Vora for learned advocate Mr. Satyam Chhaya for the petitioners relying upon judgment of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Prahladbhai Jyantibhai Raval v/s. State of Gujarat [2022 (0) Supreme (Guj) 1210] would submit that in the present case, accused is charged with offence under Sections 379, 114 of Indian Penal Coderead read with sections 3, 5, 8 & 13 of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2005 and under Section 4(1-A) and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act .

3.1. Learned advocate Mr. Vora for the petitioner at the outset would submit that he is not pressing present petition so far as offence under section 379, 114 of IPC is concerned. He would submit that in the present case, Investigating OfÏcer after investigating the offence has also filed charge-sheet under the MMDR Act. He would further submit that in view of section 22 of the MMDR Act, the Court cannot take cognizance of offence