P&H HC Quashes Illegal-Mining Case Against Crusher Owner, Others For Lack Of Authorised Written Complaint Under MMDR Act

In brief

The question

1. Whether the trial court could take cognizance of an offence under Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act on a police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., absent a written complaint by a person authorised under Section 22

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 28 dated 12 June 2023, registered under Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act, together with all consequential proceedings, including the framing of charges.

It also directed

Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

01Facts

On 12 June 2023, mining officials and police allegedly found illegal mining at a stone crusher in village Sehuti Taraf Narot.

pp. 1–3, 5

A poclain machine and tipper were seized, and the petitioners were alleged to be involved.

pp. 1–3, 5

An FIR was registered under Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (“MMDR Act”); after investigation, police filed a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., and the trial court framed charges.

pp. 1–3, 5

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 528 BNSS, contending that Section 22 of the MMDR Act bars cognizance except on a written complaint by an authorised person.

pp. 1–3, 5

The State maintained that the offence was cognizable and that police could investigate and submit a report.

pp. 1–3, 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the trial court could take cognizance of an offence under Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act on a police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., absent a written complaint by a person authorised under Section 22

pp. 2–3, 5

ii.2. Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings, including the framing of charges, were liable to be quashed in those circumstances

pp. 2–3, 5–6

03Law Applied

Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act prescribes punishment for contravention of Section 4(1) or 4(1A), while Section 21(6) makes an offence under Section 21(1) cognizable.

pp. 3–4

Section 22 nevertheless provides that no court may take cognizance of an offence under the Act or its rules except upon a written complaint by a person authorised by the Central or State Government.

p. 4

The Court relied on *Kulwant Kaur v. State of Punjab and Another*, 2024 PHHC:038884, and *Harmela Ram v. State of Haryana*, 2013 (3) RCR (Criminal) 141, for the proposition that proceedings under the MMDR Act cannot be founded on an unauthorised police report in place of the complaint required by Section 22.

p. 5

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 Section 21 Section 22 Section 4 Section 23

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 173

04Reasoning

Although Section 21(1) makes the alleged offence punishable and Section 21(6) classifies it as cognizable, the Court treated Section 22’s complaint requirement as a bar to the trial court taking cognizance on the police report alone.

pp. 4–6

The State’s replies showed that the police had investigated the FIR and filed a final report, while the record contained no written complaint by an authorised person.

pp. 4–6

The trial court had therefore erred in taking cognizance and framing charges on that basis.

pp. 4–6