Gujarat HC Keeps Alleged Bauxite-Theft Case Alive Under IPC, Quashes Mining And Wildlife Act Proceedings On Police Report

The applicants sought quashing of an FIR registered at Kalyanpur Police Station, Jamnagar, alleging that they had excavated land in Virpur Mevasa and Marin National Park and removed bauxite.

The FIR invoked Sections 379 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act), and Sections 27(1) and 29 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (Wild Life Act).

The applicants argued that the special Acts required a complaint by an authorized person before a court could take cognizance; the State submitted that the police could nevertheless investigate and prosecute the distinct IPC offence of theft.

Section 22 of the MMDR Act and Section 55 of the Wild Life Act restrict a court from taking cognizance of offences under those Acts except upon a complaint by an authorized person.

In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772, the Supreme Court held that the restriction in Section 22 does not bar police from investigating a distinct IPC offence, such as theft of minerals, or a Magistrate from taking cognizance of that IPC offence on a police report under the CrPC.

The judgment applied this distinction between offences under the special statutes and the separate offence of theft under Sections 378–379 IPC.

Applying Sanjay, the Court treated the alleged dishonest removal of bauxite as capable of constituting theft distinct from any contravention of the MMDR Act or the Wild Life Act.

The statutory complaint requirements therefore did not invalidate the police investigation or proceedings concerning Sections 379 and 114 IPC.

Conversely, a police charge-sheet alone could not support cognizance of offences under the special Acts; prosecution for those offences required a written complaint by an authorized officer.

The police charge-sheet proceedings concerning the specified MMDR Act and Wild Life Act offences were quashed, while authorized officers were left at liberty to file complaints before the jurisdictional Magistrate in accordance with the relevant statutes.

The request to quash the FIR insofar as it alleged offences under Sections 379 and 114 IPC was rejected, and the trial court was directed to proceed on those offences in accordance with law.