No Cognizance Without Complaint by Authorized Officer: Jharkhand High Court Quashes Charges Under MMDR Act Framed on Police Report

“Section 22 of the MMDR Act bars cognizance except on a written complaint by an authorized officer. A Magistrate cannot take cognizance of MMDR offences solely based on a police report.” — ruled the Jharkhand High Court, setting aside charges framed under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.

In Ashish Kumar Agrawal v. State of Jharkhand, Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi allowed the criminal revision petition challenging the framing of charges under Section 21 of the MMDR Act and Rule 54 of the JMMC Rules, holding that the trial court could not proceed with these charges in the absence of a statutory complaint by an authorized officer, as required under Section 22 of the Act.

“Police Can Investigate, But Magistrate Can’t Take Cognizance of MMDR Offences on Police Report Alone”: High Court Clarifies Legal Position

The prosecution had framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 379 and 411 IPC, as well as Section 21 MMDR Act and Rule 54 JMMC Rules, based on a chargesheet filed by police following a raid on an alleged illegal brick kiln operating without mining clearances.

Rejecting the framing of MMDR charges, the Court emphasized:

“Section 22 MMDR Act imposes a clear bar: no court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act or the Rules made thereunder except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorized by the Central or State Government.”

Thus, while the police can investigate, the court can only take cognizance for MMDR offences upon proper complaint, not on a police report.

“Theft of Minerals Under IPC is a Separate Offence from Illegal Mining Under MMDR”: Charges Under Sections 379 and 411 IPC Upheld

While quashing MMDR-related charges, the Court upheld the framing of charges under Sections 379 and 411 IPC, observing:

“Theft of soil or minerals from government land is a cognizable IPC offence, distinct from unauthorized mining under the MMDR Act. There is no bar to police investigating and magistrate taking cognizance for IPC offences under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC.”

The Court reiterated the principle laid down in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay (2014) 9 SCC 772, affirming that:

“Dishonest removal of minerals from government land amounts to theft punishable under IPC, and police are well within their powers to investigate and submit a chargesheet under Section 173 CrPC.”

“No Conflict Between IPC and MMDR Offences—They Can Proceed Parallelly”: Court Affirms Legal Coexistence

The judgment draws a clear distinction between the offences punishable under IPC and those under MMDR Act:

“Illegal mining without authorization violates Section 4 and is punishable under Section 21 MMDR Act. Theft of minerals is an offence under IPC. The two can coexist, as they stem from different legal ingredients.”

While recognizing that Section 21 MMDR Act makes the offence cognizable, the Court reiterated that cognizance is still barred under Section 22 unless initiated through a proper complaint.

The High Court summarized the settled position:

“Police can investigate both IPC and MMDR offences. But after investigation, a chargesheet can be filed only for IPC offences. For MMDR violations, a complaint must be filed by an authorized officer for a magistrate to take cognizance.”

“Section 22 MMDR Act Creates a Statutory Bar to Cognizance on Police Report”: Court Relies on Supreme Court Precedents

Relying on Jayant v. State of M.P. (2021) 2 SCC 670 and Kanwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P. (2020) 14 SCC 331, the Court reiterated:

“The bar under Section 22 applies at the stage of cognizance, not investigation. Police can register FIR and investigate, but the magistrate can take cognizance for MMDR offences only upon a written complaint by an authorized officer.”

In Jayant, the Supreme Court had clarified:

“The magistrate may proceed with IPC offences based on police report but must await a formal complaint under MMDR Act for cognizance under that statute.”

The Jharkhand High Court fully endorsed this view and adopted the reasoning.

“Police Report Valid for IPC Offences; MMDR Complaint Must Come from Authorized Officer”: Trial to Proceed Only for IPC Charges

Summing up its findings, the Court held:

“The charges under Section 21 MMDR Act and Rule 54 JMMC Rules are quashed due to lack of statutory complaint. However, the trial for Sections 379 and 411 IPC will proceed in accordance with law.”

The Court further granted liberty to the authorized officer to file a valid complaint under MMDR Act, should the State choose to pursue that line of prosecution.

Directions Issued to Ensure Uniformity Across Courts and Authorities

Acknowledging the wider implications of the legal issue, the High Court directed:

“A copy of this judgment shall be circulated to all concerned magistrates, district judges, special courts under Section 30 of the MMDR Act, and the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, for compliance and clarity.”

MMDR Offences Require Authorized Complaint—Police Report Alone Not Enough

This judgment reinforces the statutory safeguard under Section 22 MMDR Act and prevents unauthorized prosecution for mining offences based solely on police reports. While recognizing the State’s power to curb illegal mining, the Court ensured that procedural discipline under special statutes must be strictly followed.

The ruling clarifies for all lower courts in Jharkhand that:

• Police can investigate MMDR offences, but

• Courts can’t take cognizance under MMDR Act without a complaint from a designated officer

• IPC offences like theft of minerals can proceed independently on police report

Date of Judgment: 6 October 2025