Court established that a complaint from an authorized officer is necessary for cognizance under the MMDR Act, but police can pursue theft charges 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 I-C.R.No.32 of 2018 registered with Ladol Police Station, Mehsana for the offences under Sections 379 of Indian Penal Code, sections 4(1) and 4(1)(A the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and sections 3 and 7 of the Gujarat Minerals Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage Rules, 2017 and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

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

2.1. That on 16.03.2018, complainant went to survey lease of the petitioner situated at Jetpur Village of Vijapur Taluka, that at the lease site with presence of petitioner the survey was carried out and limit sign was not seen due to water and no sign board was found at the lease site, that no equipment or vehicle used for sand mining was found at the site and that between October, 2016 to March, 2018, the petitioner has mined total 1,01,321.26 metric ton but at the site no mining acitivity could be seen and royalty pass was missued. Hence, the present FIR was registered.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Shah for the petitioner 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 of Indian Penal Code, sections 4(1) and 4(1)A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (for short "MMDR Act") and sections 3 and 7 of the Gujarat Minerals Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage Rules, 2017.

3.1. Learned advocate for the petitioners at the outset would submit that he is not pressing present petition so far as offence under section 379 of IPC is concerned. He would submit that in the present case, Investigating Officer 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 under the Act and Rules made thereunder except in case of written complaint filed by Authorized Officer. He would further submit that since authorized officer has not filed written complaint as defined under section 2(d) of Cr.P.C ., Investigating Officer cannot file charge-sheet for the offence under the MMDR Act and the Court cannot take cognizance of said Act. Therefore, he submits to quash the proceedings qua the offence under the Act and Rules made therein.

4. Learned APP for the respondent State would submit that the petitioner cannot seek quashment of FIR on this ground and therefore submitted not to exercise inherent power of this Court to quash the complaint and submitted to dismiss the petition.

5. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, what could be notice that chief allegations against the petitioners is in regard to illegal theft of minerals including sand. Property indisputably is of the State Government. In view of that, offence under section 379 of IPC is already registered. However, whether offence under the MMDR Act can be taken cognizance by learned Trial Court in absence of written complaint is issue to be decided in the matter.

6. Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act reads as under :-

"22. No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any Rules made thereunder except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government."

6.1.