IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 3804 of 2025

1. Pritam Kumar Roy @ Pritam Rai @ Pritam Kumar, aged about 37 years, son of Maheshwari Roy, resident of Village Rewali, P.O. –Rewali

and P.S. –Katkamdag, District –Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.

2. Amit Kumar Roy @ Amit Kumar Rai, aged about 37 years, son of Ramu Roy, resident of village –Rewali, P.O. –Rewali and P.S. –

Katkamdag, District –Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.

3. Udai Rai @ Anjani Kumar Rai, aged about 37 years, son of Brajesh Roy, resident of village –Rewali, P.O. Rewali and P.S. –Katkamdag,

District –Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.

4. Gautam Kumar Sahu @ Gautam Sahu, aged about 34 years, son of Baneshwar Sahu, resident of village –Rewali, P.O. Rewali and P.S. –

Katkamdag, District –Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.

5. Dharamveer Kumar Gupta @ Pappu Kumar @ Pappu Sao @ Dharamveer, aged about 32 years, son of Ritu Saw, resident of village – Rewali, P.O. Rewali and P.S. –Katkamdag, District –Hazaribagh,

Jharkhand. .... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Jharkhand …. Opp. Party

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

…..

For the Petitioners : Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Advocate

For the State : Mr. P.K. Chatterjee, Spl. 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 the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 26.04.2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Hazaribagh in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.

367 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 807 of 2025.

3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners abandons all other prayers and confine their prayer only to quash the order taking cognizance dated 26.04.2025 in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 367 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 807 of 2025 so far as it relates to the offence punishable under Section 5/6/15 of the Environment (Protection)

Act, 1986.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that charge has not yet been framed in this case.

5. Drawing attention of this Court to Section 19 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Section 19 of the said Act prohibits any court from taking cognizance of any offence under the said Act, except upon the complaint made by the Central Government or any authority or officer authorized on behalf of the Central Government, adjudicating officer or any officer authorized by him or any person who has given notice of not less than sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence.

6. Relying upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Shashi Anand Sinha & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in MANU/JH/1144/2025 wherein this Court relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Sanjay and allied cases, reported in

2014 INSC 602 para-68 of which reads as under:-

“68. 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 in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 and other sections of the Act, the officer empowered and authorized under the Act shall exercise all the powers including making a complaint before the jurisdictional magistrate. It is also not in dispute that the Magistrate shall in such cases take cognizance on the basis of the complaint filed before it by a duly authorized officer. In case of breach and violation of Section 4 and other provisions of the Act, the police officer cannot insist Magistrate for taking cognizance under the Act on the basis of the record submitted by the police alleging contravention of the said Act. In other words, the prohibition contained in Section 22 of the Act against prosecution of a person except on a complaint made A by the officer is attracted only when such person sought