ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

Call for the records in C.C.No.465 of 2016 pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli and quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.465 of 2016 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 491), 4(1A), 21, 22 of MMDR (Mines and Minerals Regulation of Development) Act, 1957 pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Devanahalli Bangalore.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the Respondent/State.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned charge-sheet in order to point out that the said proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 21 and 22 of Mines and Minerals Regulation of Development Act, 1957 (for short, MMDR Act) before the Respondent/Police is impermissible since the same is not permissible under Section 22 of the MMRD Act as held by this Court in the case of A.Sridhar and others Vs. the State of Karnataka and another decided on 04.12.2017 in Crl.P.No.9358 of 2017. It is therefore submitted that in the absence of a complaint filed by an unauthorized person either by the State Government or the Central Government under Section 22 of the MMDR Act, the present police complaint culminating in the impugned charge-sheet deserves to be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. In A.Sridhar's case (supra), this Court held as under:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Learned HCGP takes notice to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Perused the records.

3. The petitioner has called in question the proceedings before the Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Gudibande at Chikkaballapur, wherein after taking cognizance, process has been issued to the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 420 r/w. 34 of IPC and also under Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 21(5) of Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act ( for short, MMRD Act’) and Sections 3 and 42 the Karnataka Mines and Minerals Concession Rules (for short, KMMC Rules).

4. Learned counsel submits before the court that there is a bar under Section 22 of the MMRD Act for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences under the MMRD Act and KMMC Rules.

Section 22 of MMRD Act reads as under:

Sec. 22: Cognizance of offences- No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any Rules made hereunder except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government.”

5. In the above provision it is clear that, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance for offences under the above said enactment and rules unless a complaint is lodged by an authorized officer. At this stage, it is worth note hear a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2015 SC 75 between State of NCT Delhi, along with other cases, wherein it has dealt with the same situation and observed that the Magistrate can only take cognizance for the offences punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and he cannot take cognizance for the offences under the Provisions of MMRD Act and Rules in view of a specific bar under Section 22 of the Act. The relevant portions at Paragraphs 68 to

72 of the said decision, 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 shal