ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.428 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent.

2.Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first registered the F.I.R in Crime No.428 of 2021 for the offences under Section 379 of I.P.C and Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation), Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MMDR Act') alleging that on the complaint received from the Chief Minister Special Cell, the second respondent inspected the land comprised in Survey No.447/2 to an extent of 0.49.50 hectares belonged to the petitioner and he runs a brick kiln in the said land and adjacent to his land, there is a Government odai poramboke comprised in Survey No.447/1. The second respondent found that the sand measuring 7020 cubic meter feet was accumulated from the Government odai poramboke in Survey No.447/1.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had registered his brick kiln and having manufacturing unit in his own patta land to an extent of more than

5 acres of patta land. He had got all prior permission in accordance with law to run the brick kiln manufacturing unit, as per the proceedings in ROC.No.77/G & M/2010, dated 09.04.20210. Since the petitioner was granted permission, he had applied for renewal of brick kiln registration certificate in respect of the land comprised in Survey No.629/3 of Thazhakudi Village, Thovalai Taluk as per Rule 19(2) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. Accordingly, his registration certificate was renewed and the lease period was also extended from 11.09.2020 to 10.09.2023. Therefore, the petitioner never committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R and the ingredients are not at all constituted any of the offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner did not take any single unit of sand in the Government odai poramboke land comprised in Survey No.447/1. Any offence committed under the MMDR Act, cognizance can be taken by a Court only on a complaint made in writing by a person authorized in this behalf and as such, the first respondent has no jurisdiction to investigate the crime registered under the MMDR Act. The MMDR Act is being a Special Act, a statutory duty under Section 22 of the Act which makes the offences to be taken into cognizance only in the form of a private complaint. In the case on hand, the second respondent, who is being a Village Administrative Officer, lodged the complaint and the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the first respondent registered the case. As per G.O.Ms.No.114, Industries (MMC-1), dated 18.09.2000, the person authorized to make the complaint would be the Revenue Officer not below the rank of the Inspector of Police. Therefore, the present F.I.R has been registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police and he has no jurisdiction to register any complaint under the MMDR Act.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that the F.I.R do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of Cr.P.C. It constitute only a non-cognizable offence and as such, no investigation is permitted by the first respondent without prior order from the jurisdictional Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. In support of his contention, he relied upon the Judgment of this Court reported in 2019 SCC Online Mad 16632 in the case of Elangeswaran and others Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police and another and this Court held that in view of the bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act, the police officer has no power to investigate in respect of the offence under Section 4(1-A) r/w 21 of the MMDR Act and the special enactment will over ride the general provisions of law and hence merely because Section 379 of I.P.C was also included in the F.I.R, it cannot be said that the police has got the jurisdiction to investigate t