IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3509 of 2025 Rajesh Kumar Sah, aged about 54 years, son of Sri Ram Gopal Sah, resident of H. No.4, Works Compound Area Main Road, Purihasa, P.O.

& P.S.-Sundar Nagar, Town-Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Opp. Party P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY …..

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal, Advocate : Ms. Ayushi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, Addl. P.P.

…..

By the Court:-

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 17.03.2025, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila in connection with Ghatsila P.S. Case No. 54 of 2023, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 74 of 2025 whereby and where under, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, Rule 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 and Section 13 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017.

3. At the outset, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner confines his prayer only for quashing the portion of the order, so far as it relates to the offences punishable under the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Acts and the Rules made thereunder.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the Hywa vehicle which was involved in illegal transportation of sand. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was assisting in concealment of stolen property and committing the offences under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and Rules.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court to Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 which reads as under:-

“22. Cognizance of offences.—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.”

submits that the said Act in no uncertain manner envisages that cognizance of any offence punishable under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act or any Rules made thereunder can only be taken by the court if and only if, a complaint in writing is made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. It is next submitted that even though no complaint was made in writing to the court by any person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government, rather a F.I.R. was lodged, the learned court below ought not have taken cognizance for the offences punishable under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and the Rules made thereunder being the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules and the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017.

6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jayant and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2021) 2 SCC 670, para -21.2 of which reads as under:-

“21.2. The bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act shall be attracted only when the learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the offences under the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder and orders issuance of process/summons for the offences under the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder.”

as also the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State (N