IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3975 of 2020 (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER)

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI : Sd/-

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

Approved for Reporting Yes No - √

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

RAMABHAI JIVABHAI KESHWALA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR DARSHIL KAMDAR for MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR MANAN MEHTA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 =======================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI Date : 10/01/2025 ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Draft amendment is allowed. To be carried out forthwith.

2. By way of present application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“the Code” for short), the applicant has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R. No.I-48/2016 registered with Bhayavadar Police Station for the offences under Sections 379 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short), under Rules 3, 5, 6, 8 and 13 of the Gujarat Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage Rules, 2005 (“Rules, 2005” for short) and under Sections 4(1) and 4(1A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (“Act, 1957” for short).

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the present matter is squarely covered by the order dated 03.07.2024 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.11029/2017, wherein similar issue has been decided by this Court and quashed and set aside FIR qua the offences under the IPC reserving liberty to take appropriate action under the provision of Act, 1957. He further submitted that the chargesheet has already been filed, which may also be quashed and set aside. It is, therefore, urged that this application may be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned APP is not in a position to dispute about the order passed by this Court relied upon by learned advocate for the applicant and submitted that appropriate order may be passed reserving liberty to the concerned officer to initiate proceedings under the provision of the Act, 1957.

5. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the parties as also considered the order dated 03.07.2024 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.11029/2027. Relevant observations made by this Court reads as under, “7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration in this petition is as to whether the prosecution deserves to be quashed or not in view of the specific bar as provided under Section 22 of the Act, 1957.

8. Before the submissions made on behalf of the parties are considered, I would like to refer to the provision of the Act, 1957.

9. Section 4 of the Act, 1957 reads as under:

"4. Prospecting or mining operations to be under license 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 license or, as the case may be, of a mining lease, granted under this Act and the rules made thereunder.]

Provided that nothing in this sub section shall affect any prospecting or mining operations undertaken in any area in accordance with the terms and conditions of a prospecting license or mining lease granted before the commencement of this Act which is in force at such commencement:

[Provided further that nothing in this sub section shall apply to any prospecting operations undertaken by the Geological Survey of India, the Indian Bureau of Mines, [the Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research] of the Department of Atomic Energy of t