Section 22 bars MMDR prosecution without an authorised officer’s complaint, but does not bar distinct IPC proceedings.

The applicant invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash an FIR registered at “A” Division Police Station, Patan, alleging offences under Sections 4(1) and 4(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (“MMDR Act”), the Gujarat Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, and Sections 379 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The applicant argued that Section 22 of the MMDR Act required a written complaint by an authorised officer before a court could take cognizance of offences under the Act. The State did not dispute that requirement.

Whether the FIR and proceedings could continue for alleged offences under the MMDR Act and the 2017 Rules where no complaint had been filed by an authorised officer as required by Section 22.

Whether quashing the proceedings for offences under the MMDR Act also barred investigation or trial of the alleged IPC offences arising from the same transaction.

Section 22 of the MMDR Act bars a court from taking cognizance of an offence under that Act or its rules except upon a written complaint by a person authorised by the Central or State Government; it does not prohibit the police from registering an FIR or investigating the alleged conduct.

Under State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772, the Section 22 bar applies to prosecution for contraventions of the MMDR Act, not to IPC offences—such as theft—that may arise from the same transaction.

The court also referred to the coordinate-bench decision in Criminal Misc. Application No. 15471 of 2021, which stated that an authorised officer may file a complaint relying on material collected during police investigation.

The FIR had been registered by the police, and the mandatory Section 22 complaint by an authorised officer had not been filed. Applying Section 22 and the coordinate-bench reasoning, the Court held that proceedings for the MMDR Act and Rules offences could not continue on the basis of the police FIR alone.

However, following Sanjay, the Court treated the IPC offences separately: the statutory complaint requirement did not prevent their investigation or trial.

The Court further clarified that the investigation material remained valid and that an authorised officer could still file a complaint; any limitation issue in that event would be considered under Section 473 CrPC.

Investigation and/or trial of the IPC offences was left to proceed in accordance with law.

The Court preserved the authority’s option to file a complaint through an authorised officer and directed that any such complaint be considered in accordance with law, including the limitation question under Section 473 CrPC.