IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 16390 of 2021 ==========================================================

PRAKASHBHAI KANTILAL GOR & ANR.

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR JAYESH A DAVE(253) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR. RONAK RAWAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER Date : 06/04/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. The present application is filed for quashment of the FIR registered as First C.R. No. 11205031210161 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 420, 465, 468, 471, 474, and 120(B) of the IPC, and under Sections 4(1), 4(1)(A), and 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals Act, 1957, as well as under Sections 3, 21, and 22(a) of the Gujarat Minerals Rules, 2005, 2016, and 2017, before the Mandvi Police Station, Kutch, Bhuj, dated 15th March 2021.

2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Jayesh Dave does not press this application qua the offence under IPC and submitted that qua the offence of Mines and Minerals Act under Section- 22, the complaint is required to be filed, therefore, impugned FIR, which is ultimately culminated into the charge-sheet, is not maintainable. Liberty is sought to file a discharge application qua the offences under the IPC.

3. It is submitted by learned advocate that, even otherwise, also the offence is compoundable, and the present applicant had paid the amount of penalty on 10^th of March, 2021, which is received by the Mines and Minerals Department. In that background, the impugned FIR qua offence of Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 requires to quash.

4. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the State does not dispute the above aspect and submitted to pass an appropriate order.

5. Considering the averments made in the FIR, which is culminated into the charge-sheet, which is filed on 29.06.2021 alleging offences under the IPC as well as under the Mines and Minerals Act, is contrary to the Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals Act, which is reproduced here-in-below.

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 authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government

5. This Court has referred to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Kanwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P., reported in (2020) 14 SCC 331 : (2020) 4 SCC (Cri) 815 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1652, wherein it is held as under in para-10 &

11:-

“10. Elucidating on the provisions of Section 4 read with Sections 21 and 22 of the MMDR Act, 1957 and the offence under Section 379 IPC, it was observed in Sanjay [State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 437] : (SCC pp. 811-12, paras 69-72)

“69. Considering the principles of interpretation and the wordings used in Section 22, in our considered opinion, the provision is not a complete and absolute bar for taking action by the police for illegal and dishonestly committing theft of minerals including sand from the riverbed. The Court shall take judicial notice of the fact that over the years rivers in India have been affected by the alarming rate of unrestricted sand mining which is damaging the ecosystem of the rivers and safety of bridges. It also weakens riverbeds, fish breeding and destroys the natural habitat of many organisms. If these illegal activities are not stopped by the State and the police authorities of the State, it will cause serious repercussions as mentioned hereinabove. It will not only change the river hydrology but also will deplete the groundwater levels.

70. There cannot be any dispute with regard to restrictions imposed under the MMDR Act and remedy provided therein. In any case, where there is a mining activity by any person