IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

265 Date of decision: 17.09.2025 Surinder Singh Bajwa ...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Ms. Shivali Sharma, Advocate for Mr. A.P.S. Rehan, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Jatin Kundu, AAG Punjab.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in the instant petition is for quashing of FIR bearing No.45 dated 10.08.2022 registered under Section 21 (1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1957’), at Police Station Hajipur, District Hoshiarpur and all consequential proceedings, including the police report dated 20.04.2023 (Annexure P-2) arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a farmer by profession. Alleging excavation of soil from a piece of land owned by him for the purpose of levelling another low-lying piece of his land to be in violation of the Act of 1957, the FIR in question has been got registered. She contends that ordinary earth/clay is not a ‘Mineral’ but a ‘Minor Mineral’ which is separately defined under the Act of 1957, and that Section 21 of the Act is attracted only in case of any violation (of the kind as mentioned in Section 4 of the Act) with respect to minerals only and not in respect of minor minerals. She further contends that, as per Section 22 of the Act of 1957, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act or any rules made thereunder except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorized for the same by the Central Government or the State Government. She contends that the police officials are precluded from taking cognizance of the matter, and the authorized officer who can submit a complaint before the competent authority is the Mining Officer of the Department. An FIR thus cannot be registered in relation to the same. She places reliance on the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of ‘Kulwant Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and another’ reported as 2024 NCPHHC 38884. The operative part thereof reads thus:-

“4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the MMDR Act specifically provides that no Court can take cognizance of an offence under this Act, other than on a written complaint to the Court by the authorized officer, as such, the FIR could not have been registered in the first place. A perusal of the FIR (Annexure P-1) itself would indicate that the police did not witness any illegal mining happening on the said land.

5. Short reply dated 15.03.2024 by way of an affidavit of Raj Kumar, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub- Division Ajnala, Amritsar (Rural) on behalf of respondent No.1-State has been filed and the same is taken on record.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the police party did not find any instances of illegal mining from the spot visit and only a varma, allegedly belonging to the petitioner, was found parked on the spot, which in itself does not establish commission of an offence. Further, the Court is barred from taking cognizance of commission of an offence under Section 22 of the MMDR Act, except if a complaint in writing is made on behalf of the Central Government or the State Government. For proper disposal of the case at hand, it is pertinent to discuss Sections 21 and 22 of the MMDR Act which read as follows:

21. Penalties ― (1) Whoever contravenes the provisions of subsection (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare of the area.

(2) Any rule made under any provision of this Act may provide that any contravention thereof shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to fi