Magistrate Cannot Take Cognizance Under MMDR Act Without Complaint by Authorized Officer: Gujarat High Court Quashes FIR in Illegal Mining Case

The Gujarat High Court quashed an FIR registered against Ramabhai Jivabhai Keshwala for alleged illegal mining and theft of minerals. Justice Divyesh A. Joshi held that the prosecution under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act), is invalid unless initiated through a written complaint by an authorized officer, as required under Section 22 of the Act. The Court declared:

“No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunder except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government.”

"Filing of Police Chargesheet Insufficient Under MMDR Act"
The FIR (C.R. No. I-48/2016) had been registered with Bhayavadar Police Station for offences under Sections 379 (theft) and 114 (abetment) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with violations of the Gujarat Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation, and Storage Rules, 2005) and the MMDR Act. The police had subsequently filed a chargesheet, which the Magistrate took cognizance of.

However, the Court found that this action violated Section 22 of the MMDR Act, which mandates that prosecutions under the Act and related rules can only be initiated by a written complaint filed by an authorized officer. Justice Joshi remarked:
“It is not open for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence punishable under the MMDR Act or its rules on the mere filing of a chargesheet by the police.”

Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay, the Court noted that the procedural safeguards in Section 22 are mandatory. “The failure to adhere to this statutory requirement vitiates the proceedings,” the judgment asserted.

"FIR for IPC Offences in Illegal Mining Cases is Permissible"
The Court also addressed the distinction between offences under the MMDR Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in cases of illegal mining. Justice Joshi clarified:
“There may be situations where a person, without any lease or license, enters a riverbed and extracts minerals with the dishonest intent of depriving the State of its property. Such acts constitute theft under Section 379 IPC, and FIRs for these offences are permissible.”

However, the judgment reiterated that IPC offences must be distinct from violations of the MMDR Act. The Court explained, “Prosecution for violations under Section 4(1) and 4(1A) of the MMDR Act must strictly follow the procedure laid down in Section 22 of the Act.”

"Magistrate’s Cognizance of MMDR Act Violations Without Authorized Complaint is Void"
Highlighting the procedural lapses in the case, the Court observed:
“Here, the FIR was registered by a police inspector, and the subsequent chargesheet was filed without any complaint from an authorized officer as required under Section 22 of the MMDR Act. This is a clear violation of the statutory mandate, and the cognizance taken by the Magistrate is unsustainable.”

Justice Joshi referred to a previous ruling of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 11029 of 2017, which dealt with similar issues of unauthorized prosecutions under the MMDR Act. The Court noted:
“Section 22 of the MMDR Act does not prohibit the registration of an FIR by the police. However, it explicitly prohibits the Magistrate from taking cognizance of offences under the Act or its rules without a complaint filed by an authorized officer.”

"Liberty to File Fresh Complaint Through Authorized Officer Granted"
While quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings, the Court clarified that the order does not preclude the concerned authorities from initiating fresh proceedings in compliance with the MMDR Act. Justice Joshi stated:
“It shall be open for the authority concerned to file a private complaint in the Court of the learned Magistrate, through an authorized officer, relying upon the material and evidence already collected in connection with the impugned FIR. If such a complaint is filed, the Magistrate shall proceed to consider it in accordance with law.”

The Gujarat High Court’s decision underscores the importance of procedural safeguards in prosecutions under special statutes like the MMDR Act. By quashing the FIR and chargesheet, the Court reaffirmed the principle that statutory mandates, such as those under Section 22 of the MMDR Act, are indispensable for ensuring fairness and legality in criminal proceedings.

Decision Date: January 10, 2025