FIR for Illegal Mining is Valid, But Court Can't Proceed Without Complaint by Authorized Officer: Punjab & Haryana High Court Clarifies MMDR Act Jurisdictional Bar

"Statutory Bar Under Section 22 MMDR Act Applies Only at Cognizance Stage – Not To FIR or Investigation", In a significant ruling Punjab and Haryana High Court (Bench: Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj) delivered a detailed verdict interpreting the procedural interplay between Sections 21(6) and 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, reaffirming that while police are empowered to register FIRs and investigate cognizable offences under the Act, no criminal court can take cognizance of such offences unless a written complaint is filed by an authorized officer.

The Court was deciding five connected petitions involving challenges to FIRs, police investigations, final reports under Section 173 CrPC, and orders framing charges for alleged illegal mining activities across multiple districts in Punjab. The petitioners—Jagdish Singh, Manpreet Singh, Nasib Chand, and others—sought quashing of the FIRs on the ground that prosecution under the MMDR Act could not be initiated without a complaint from an authorized officer, relying heavily on Section 22 of the Act.

Justice Bhardwaj harmonized the apparent conflict between the two key provisions—Section 21(6) which makes offences under the MMDR Act cognizable, and Section 22 which bars courts from taking cognizance without a complaint—by holding that the bar under Section 22 is strictly limited to the judicial act of taking cognizance, and does not extend to police powers of investigation.

“Police Can Investigate; Court Can’t Proceed Without Proper Complaint”

Declaring the law on the subject, the Court held:

“Section 21(6) of the MMDR Act empowers the police to register FIRs and conduct investigations for illegal mining offences. The embargo under Section 22 operates only upon the Court's act of taking cognizance. This conscious legislative scheme preserves the police’s investigative domain while safeguarding individuals from unwarranted prosecutions without departmental oversight.”

Justice Bhardwaj rejected the argument advanced by the petitioners that the FIRs and investigations were void ab initio. He clarified:

“Had the Legislature intended to bar investigation itself, it would have worded Section 22 differently. Instead, the prohibition is specifically directed at the Court, not at the investigative agency. Therefore, FIR registration and investigation under the MMDR Act are not precluded.”

This position aligns with the decisions of the Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay [(2014) 9 SCC 772], Jayant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2021) 2 SCC 670], and Pardeep S. Wodeyar v. State of Karnataka [(2022) 2 RCR (Crl) 359], all of which held that Section 22 bars cognizance, not investigation.

“Offence Under MMDR Act Must Be Prosecuted Only Through Complaint of Authorized Officer”

While upholding the validity of FIRs and police investigations, the Court struck down the orders taking cognizance and framing charges in several of the petitions, declaring them to be non est in law for want of a complaint by an authorized officer under Section 22. It held:

“Permitting a Magistrate to proceed on the basis of a police report without the authorized complaint would render the statutory safeguard under Section 22 illusory. The defect is jurisdictional and foundational, not a mere procedural irregularity curable under Section 465 CrPC.”

Accordingly, the orders framing charges in CRM-M-66839-2025 (Jagdish Singh), CRM-M-60536-2025 and CRM-M-61811-2025 (Nasib Chand), and CRM-M-66761-2025 (Sarbjit Singh) were quashed, and liberty was granted to the State/authorized officer to file appropriate complaints under Section 22 if so advised.

The Court clarified that once such a complaint is filed, the trial court may then take cognizance and proceed in accordance with law, provided all statutory prerequisites are satisfied.

IPC Offences Arising from Same Transaction: Not Automatically Barred

The petitioners had also argued that the addition of IPC offences such as Sections 379 (theft) and 411 (receiving stolen property) was an attempt to circumvent the bar under the MMDR Act. However, the Court made a fine distinction.

It held that IPC offences can proceed independently, provided they are distinct and severable from the mining offence. But where IPC charges are intrinsically linked or constitute mere repackaging of MMDR violations, the bar under Section 22 would apply. The Court elaborated:

“In a situation where the alleged theft of minerals forms an indivisible part of the illegal mining act itself, prosecution under IPC cannot proceed without satisfying the threshold under Section 22. However, if the IPC offence is truly distinct—for example, theft of machinery or violence—cognizance can be taken independently.”

Thus, the Court did not lay down a blanket rule but required trial courts to examine the facts carefully before proceeding on IPC charges in such cases.

Earlier High Court Rulings Declared Per Incuriam for Ignoring Section 21(6)

Justice Bhardwaj categorically overruled two earlier coordinate bench rulings—Kulwant Kaur v. State of Punjab (CRM-M-49618-2017) and Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2014)—declaring them per incuriam for failing to consider Section 21(6) of the MMDR Act and binding Supreme Court precedents.

“The judgments in Kulwant Kaur and Jagjit Singh are rendered per incuriam as they failed to take into account the statutory language of Section 21(6) and the law laid down in Sanjay and Jayant. Therefore, they cannot be treated as binding precedent.”

Checks and Balances Preserved in Two-Step Process

The Court emphasized that the MMDR Act creates a deliberate two-stage framework:

1. Stage One: Police can investigate illegal mining as a cognizable offence under Section 21(6), conduct seizures, arrests, and file a report under Section 173 CrPC.
2. Stage Two: A competent court may take cognizance only upon a complaint filed by the authorized officer under Section 22.

This structure is designed to empower the police to respond swiftly to violations, while also ensuring prosecutorial oversight by the mining department.

FIRs and Investigations Stand, But Prosecution Must Follow Statutory Route

Summing up the legal position, Justice Bhardwaj ruled:

“The proceedings initiated under the MMDR Act must strictly conform to the statutory mandate. While the police are authorized to investigate cognizable offences, the jurisdiction of the court to proceed further is conditional upon a complaint by an authorized officer. This two-step framework preserves both administrative control and individual safeguards.”

Accordingly, the FIRs and investigations were upheld, but cognizance and trial proceedings—where initiated without proper complaint—were quashed. The judgment thus strikes a nuanced balance between effective enforcement of mining laws and strict adherence to procedural safeguards under the MMDR Act.

Date of Decision: January 9, 2026