Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
In the mining industry, facing an FIR for alleged illegal activities can be daunting. A common query arises: what are the grounds for quashment under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) Section 4(1)(A) and Section 21? This post delves deep into legal principles, judicial precedents, and practical insights to help understand when courts may quash FIRs or proceedings related to unauthorized mining, transportation, or storage of minerals.
Note: This is general information based on case law and statutes. It is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific situation.
Section 4(1)(A) of the MMDR Act prohibits undertaking reconnaissance, prospecting, or mining operations without proper permits, while also regulating transportation and storage of minerals. Violations often lead to FIRs, seizures, confiscations, and prosecutions under Section 21, which prescribes punishments like imprisonment or fines. Abdul Rashid VS State of U. P. - 2021 Supreme(All) 525
Section 4(1) prohibits undertaking of any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations in any area, except in accordance with the terms and conditions of reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting license... Abdul Rashid VS State of U. P. - 2021 Supreme(All) 525
However, courts recognize that not all cases warrant prolonged prosecution, especially with relief mechanisms in place.
Under Section 482 of the CrPC, High Courts have inherent powers to quash FIRs if their continuation is an abuse of process, disputes are settled, or statutory reliefs are complied with. This is pivotal in mining cases where offenders pay dues or follow government schemes.
Key Supreme Court precedent: Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303. The Court held that proceedings can be quashed if parties settle and no public interest is harmed, particularly for compoundable offenses. This principle applies to illegal mining where dues are cleared. RAJESHBHAI BHOLABHAI RAMANI VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 31
In one case, FIRs were quashed post-payment under a relief scheme, with the court noting, when the accused has complied with statutory obligations and the government supports withdrawal, continuation of proceedings is unnecessary. RAJESHBHAI BHOLABHAI RAMANI VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 31
Courts frequently quash proceedings when statutory conditions are met. For instance, in a petition under Section 482 CrPC, FIRs for offenses under Sections 4(1), 4(1A), and 21 were quashed for the petitioner after compliance. SHRI. PRAKASH S/O. LANGAPPA KONAKERI Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
...under Section 4(1), 4(1A), 21 of MMRD Act... is hereby quashed. SHRI. PRAKASH S/O. LANGAPPA KONAKERI Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
A recurring ground for quashment is procedural lapses. Section 22 mandates cognizance only on a written complaint by authorized officers, not police reports. Courts quash MMDR charges if filed via FIR/charge-sheet without this.
The court clarified that cognizance cannot be taken under the MMDR Act without a written complaint, but police can act on theft under IPC independently. DINESHBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL & ORS. vs STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 6507
In another ruling: ...further proceeding... under section 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals Act... is hereby quashed... while upholding IPC charges, as ingredients differ. Imran VS State of U. P. - 2019 Supreme(All) 2521
Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 prohibits taking cognizance of offences punishable under the Act except upon a complaint in writing... Imran VS State Of U. P. - 2019 Supreme(All) 975
This distinction prevents double jeopardy under Article 20(2) but allows parallel IPC prosecutions (e.g., Section 379 for theft). Imran VS State of U. P. - 2019 Supreme(All) 2521
Even if offenses are compounded, confiscated minerals aren't automatically returned. ...even if an offence is compounded or penalties paid, the confiscated minerals (e.g., sand) are not automatically returned... Jai Pal VS State Of U. P. - 2018 0 Supreme(All) 2164
Section 21(4A) mandates confiscation of tools/vehicles used in illegal mining, but requires complaints for execution. Delays by authorities can aid petitioners. Anshul Mishra VS District Collector, Madurai - 2020 Supreme(Mad) 660S. A. Manikandan VS Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 3203
Section 21(4A) of the Act mandates confiscation of the vehicles, tool used for illegal mining... S. A. Manikandan VS Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 3203
When filing under Section 482 CrPC:1. Demonstrate compliance: Receipts for payments/royalties.2. Government endorsement: No-objection letters.3. Cite precedents: Gian Singh, specific mining cases like RAJESHBHAI BHOLABHAI RAMANI VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 31.4. Highlight Section 22 non-compliance: If no written complaint.5. Argue no public interest: One-off violation, rectified.
Petitioners in MOHAMED SHERIFF Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE successfully invoked rules alongside MMDR sections for quashment.
Courts balance accused rights with environmental protection. Ongoing illegal activities or major ecological damage may bar quashment. States must enforce rules like Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules to curb issues. MOHAMED SHERIFF Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Relief schemes help, but confiscations persist as statutory penalties. Jai Pal VS State Of U. P. - 2018 0 Supreme(All) 2164
Quashing FIRs under MMDR Act Sections 4(1)(A) and 21 is viable on grounds like payment of dues, relief scheme compliance, government withdrawal support, and procedural defects under Section 22. Principles from Gian Singh guide courts, but confiscations endure post-compounding. RAJESHBHAI BHOLABHAI RAMANI VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 31Jai Pal VS State Of U. P. - 2018 0 Supreme(All) 2164
Key Takeaways:- Comply fully with dues/schemes for strong quashment grounds.- Leverage Section 22 for procedural quashments.- IPC charges may survive alongside quashed MMDR proceedings.- Seek early intervention via High Court petitions.- Always weigh public interest and environmental factors.
Stay informed on evolving schemes and precedents to navigate mining regulations effectively.
Last Updated: Current Date | For queries, contact a legal expert.
#MMDRAct, #QuashFIR, #IllegalMining
4(1)(A); Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2005, Rules 3, 5, and 6; Prevention of ... Procedure, 1973, Section 482; Indian Penal Code, Sections 379 and 114; Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, Section ... Indian Penal Code, Section 4(1)(A) of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and Rules 3, 5 and 6 of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining Storage and Transportatio....
If according to the prosecution extraction of brick earth or mines is an offence under section 21(1) and 21(2) of the Mines and Minerals, (Regulation and Development Act) 1957, then obviously prosecution under Section 379 of the Penal Code 1860 for that matter under Section 447 of the Penal Code, 1860 ... In the decision of Chhote Lal Chowdhury and others (Supra) a coordinate bench of this court, observed that “Section#HL....
Act, 1957 r/w 36(4)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals Construction Rule, 1859. ... Act), 1957 r/w section Rule 36(4)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1859. ... The offences alleged against these petitioners are under sections 465, 468, 471, 379 IPC and 8(ii) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Property Damages and Loss Act, 1992, sections 3(a) and 5(a) of Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and section 4#HL_END....
Section 21 deals with penalties and sub- section (1) thereof provides that whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of Section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare ... : Provided further that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any prospecting operations undertaken by th....
4(1), 4(1)A, 21(ii) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation Act), 1957 r/w section Rule 36(4)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1859. ... Substances Act, 1908 and section 4(1), 4(1-A), 21(i) of Mines and Regulation and Developm....
STATION, HUKKERI CIRCLE, BELAGAVI FOR OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 379 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 4(1), 4(1A), 21 OF MMRD (MINES AND MINERALS REGULATION DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1957 IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER HEREIN IS CONCERNED & ETC ... ) and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation Act, 1957), is hereby quashed. ... under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the ....
4(1-A) read with Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and and Medical Research Centre, Mumbai, since according to him Bureau of Investigation” [(2012) 1 SCC 40]. ... This Court had rejected the previous bail application on the following grounds: with Rule 7 of the Goa (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals
The said Act governs grant of mines including “atomic minerals” (Section 3 read with Section 4(1) and (b)). There is no restriction on the grant of exploration of licence for any minerals under the OAMDR Act, 2002, neither is there such a restriction under the CRZ notification. ... Under clause (b) of Section 4 of the OAMDR Act, the atomic minerals would include the minerals specified in Part B of....
4(1-A) and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act . ... I No.74 of 2015 registered with Mansa Police Station for the o under Sections 3, 5, 8 & 13 of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2005 and under Section 4(1-A) and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act is hereby ... After more than 40 days, an FIR c....
On that basis, a case in Crime No.181 of 2023 was registered against two persons for the offences under section 379 IPC and section 4(1)(1A) & 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) ... 4.To establish the above said fact, the petitioners also produced a copy of the order, dated 05/07/2023 issued by the Block Development Officer, Vembakottai. ... 3.Seeking quashment of the same, this petitioner....
Act, 1957 prohibits transport or storage or cause to be transported or stored any mineral otherwise then in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder, for which penalty has been prescribed as extracted above. When all the relevant provisions are examined under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, then it is evident that Section 4(1) prohibits undertaking of any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations in any area, except in accordance with the terms and conditions of reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting license or, as the ....
Act mandates the competent authority/District Collector to file complaints before the competent Court for confiscation of vehicles, which were seized for illegal mining, most of the District Collectors have not complied with this mandate. However, most of the District Collectors have not opted to file any complaint for confiscation of vehicles involved in illegal mining. The petitioner in the Criminal Original Petitions, who acted diligently, as per law, as mandated in the Act, has also been slapped with allegations of perjury without any basis and driven to the extent of defending himself, ....
Though Section 21(4A) of the Act mandates confiscation of the vehicles, tool used for illegal mining, apparently no vehicle nor any tool was confiscated by- the authorities so far. 7. Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 stipulates that any tool, equipment, vehicle or any other things used for raising, transporting any mineral from any land without any lawful authority shall be liable to be seized and those tool, equipment, vehicle or any other things seized under Sub Section 21(4) are liable to be confiscated under Section 21 (4A) ....
Act 1957 states that whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-sections (1) or (1A) of Section 4 shall be punished with imprisonment or with fine or with both. As I have already mentioned, Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and regulation) Now, the question is whether the ingredients of Section 378 of IPC are similar to that of the ingredients of Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals Act. Sub Section (1) of Section 4 states that no person shall undertake any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operation in any area, except under and in accordance with the....
As I have already mentioned, Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and regulation) Now, the question is whether the ingredients of Section 378 of IPC are similar to that of the ingredients of Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals Act. Act 1957 states that whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-sections (1) or (1A) of Section 4 shall be punished with imprisonment or with fine or with both. Sub Section (1) of Section 4 states that no person shall undertake any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operation in anyarea, except under and in accordance with the ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
