O R D E R

By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No. 78/2020, dated 21.06.2020, registered under Sections 379, 447 of the India Penal Code and Sections 21 and 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MMDR Act’ for short), at Police Station Lambagaon, District Kangra, H.P., which FIR was registered against him on the basis of a private complaint filed by respondent No. 4, on the plea that the registration of the same is in violation of the provisons of Section

22 of the MMDR Act.

2. When this case was taken up for consideration, the Court was informed that Sections 379 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code have now been deleted from the FIR and it is now only under the provisions of Sections 21 and 22 of the MMDR Act, 1957, that the FIR stands registered.

3. Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that as the FIR stands registered against the petitioner under Sections 21 and 22 of the MMDR Act on the basis of a complaint, which has been filed by a private individual, the same are not sustainable in the eyes of law in view of the statutory provisions under Sections 21 and 22 of the 1957 MMDR Act, and accordingly, he has prayed that this petition be allowed and the FIR in issue registered under Sections 21 and 22 of the MMDR Act, on the basis of a complaint filed by a private individual, be quashed and set aside.

4. Opposing the petition, Mr. Sumesh Raj, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned Counsel for the private respondent, have submitted that there is no infirmity in the FIR, which has been registered against the petitioner for the reason that as the petitioner has violated the provisions of MMDR Act, therefore, the present FIR, which stands registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the private respondent, is maintainable. Respondents have placed reliance on a judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Sanjay and other connected matters, (2014) 9 Supreme Court Cases 772, to strengthen their contention.

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings as well as the documents appended with the petition.

6. The FIR in issue was initially registered against the petitioner under the provisions of Sections 379 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 21 and 22 of the MMDR Act on the basis of a complaint lodged by the private respondent, namely, Sh. Praveen Kumar. It is not in dispute that as of now, the offences under Sections 379 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code stand deleted from the FIR and now the FIR is registered only under Sections 21 and 22 of the MMDR Act.

7. Section 4 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, provides for prospecting or mining operations to be under licence or lease. This provision inter alia contemplates that no person shall undertake any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting licence or, as the case may be, of a mining lease, granted under this Act and the rules made thereunder.

8. Section 21 of the said Act further provides for penalties and it inter alia envisages that whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section 1(A) of section 4 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees, or with both.

9. Section 22 of the MMDR Act further envisages that 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 authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government.

10. Coming back to the facts of the present case, the FIR, quashing of which has bee