Gujarat High Court
Deepak Meragbhai Chavda vs State Of Gujarat on 15 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17948/2021 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 17948 of 2021
==========================================================
DEEPAK MERAGBHAI CHAVDA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. UTKARSH SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 15/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed to quash
and set aside the FIR being CR. (F.I.R) Part-A
No.11185003200708 of 2020 registered with
Jamkalyanpur Police Station, Devbhoomi Dwarka for the
offences under Sections 379, 120B of Indian Penal Code,
sections 4(1), 4(1)(a), 21(1), 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act and sections 21(3) of the
Gujarat Minerals Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation
and Storage Rules, 2017 and all the consequential proceedings
arising therefrom.
2. Brief facts of the case is as under :-
2.1. It is the case of the complainant that, pursuant to Station
Diary Entry No. 02/2020 dated 21.06.2020, the investigation
was handed over to the complainant based on a report
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17948/2021 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
submitted by Shri V.B. Chauhan of the R.R. Cell, Rajkot Range,
dated 20.06.2020. The report stated that Shri V.B. Chauhan
and other police personnel were on patrol within the
jurisdiction of Kalyanpur Police Station to take action against
illegal mining activities.
2.2. During the patrolling, illegal mining was found to be
taking place in an area known as Bhopamadi, situated at
Village Mevasa, on land bearing Survey No. 152 belonging to
one Dadubhai Pithabhai Kandoriyaa. Heavy machinery
including Hitachi machines, dumpers, and other equipment
were allegedly being used. Vehicles as described in the FIR
were seized from the site, no valid pass or permit was found,
and a report was also forwarded to the Mines and Minerals
Officer, Devbhoomi Dwarka. Measurements of the site were
taken in the presence of concerned officers.
2.3. It is further alleged that the value of the illegal mining
activity was approximately ₹14,42,80,822/-. Hence, the
present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the FIR and
all proceedings arising therefrom.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli for the petitioner
relying upon judgment of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of
Prahladbhai Jyantibhai Raval v/s. State of Gujarat [2022
(0) Supreme (Guj) 1210] would submit that in the present
case, accused is charged with offence under Sections 379,
120B of Indian Penal Code, sections 4(1), 4(1)(a), 21(1), 21(5)
of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act
and sections 21(3) of the Gujarat Minerals Prevention of Illegal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17948/2021 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
Mining Transportation and Storage Rules, 2017.
3.1. Learned advocate Mr. Dagli for the petitioner at the
outset would submit that he is not pressing present petition so
far as offence under section 379, 114 of IPC is concerned. He
would submit that in the present case, Investigating Officer
after investigating the offence has also filed charge-sheet
under the MMDR Act. He would further submit that in view of
section 22 of the MMDR Act, the Court cannot take cognizance
of offence under the Act and Rules made thereunder except in
case of written complaint filed by Authorized Officer. He would
further submit that since authorized officer has not filed
written complaint as defined under section 2(d) of Cr.P.C.,
Investigating Officer cannot file charge-sheet for the offence
under the MMDR Act and the Court cannot take cognizance of
said Act. Therefore, he submits to quash the proceedings qua
the offence under the Act and Rules made therein.
4. Learned APP for the respondent State would submit that
the petitioner cannot seek quashment of FIR on this ground
and therefore submitted not to exercise inherent power of this
Court to quash the complaint and submitted to dismiss the
petition.
5. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, what
could be notice that chief allegations against the petitioners is
in regard to illegal theft of minerals including sand without
taking license from authority under the MMRD Act. Property
indisputably is of the State Government. In view of that,
offence under section 379 of IPC is already registered.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17948/2021 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
However, whether offence under the MMDR Act can be taken
cognizance by learned Trial Court in absence of written
complaint is issue to be decided in the matter.
6. Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act reads as under :-
"22. No Court shall take cognizance of any offence
punishable under this Act or any Rules made thereunder
except upon complaint in writing made by a person
authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or
the State Government."
6.1. Specific bar has been raised that no Court shall take
cognizance of any offence under the Act or Rules made
thereunder except upon complaint in writing made by
authorized person.
7. Complaint has been defined in section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C.
It reads as under :-
"(d)"complaint" means any allegation made orally or in
writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action
under this Code, that some person, whether known or
unknown, has committed an offence, but does not
include a police report."
7.1. The complaint means any allegation made orally or in
writing to Magistrate with a view to his taking action under the
Code or Cr.P.C.
8. At this juncture, I may refer to judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sanjay
reported in AIR 2015 SC 75, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17948/2021 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
in identical issue observed as under:
"66. Considering the principles of interpretation and the
wordings used in Section 22, in our considered opinion,
the provision is not a complete and absolute bar for
taking action by the police for illegal and dishonestly
committing theft of minerals including sand from the
river bed.
67. The Court shall take judicial notice of the fact that
over the years rivers in India have been affected by the
alarming rate of unrestricted sand mining which is
damaging the eco-system of the rivers and safety of
bridges. It also weakens river beds, fish breeding and
destroys the natural habitat of many organisms. If these
illegal activities are not stopped by the State and the
police authorities of the State, it will cause serious
repercussions as mentioned hereinabove. It will not only
change the river hydrology but also will deplete the
ground water levels.
68. There cannot be any dispute with regard to
restrictions imposed under the MMDR Act and remedy
provided therein. In any case, where there is a mining
activity by any person in contravention of the provisions
of Section 4 and other sections of the Act, the officer
empowered and authorized under the Act shall exercise
all the powers including making a complaint before the
jurisdictional magistrate. It is also not in dispute that the
Magistrate shall in such cases take cognizance on the
basis of the complaint filed before it by a duly authorized
officer. In case of breach and violation of Section 4 and
other provisions of the Act, the police officer cannot insist
Magistrate for taking cognizance under the Act on the
basis of the record submitted by the police alleging
contravention of the said Act. In other words, the
prohibition contained in Section 22 of the Act against
prosecution of a person except on a complaint made by
the officer is attracted only when such person sought to
be prosecuted for contravention of Section 4 of the Act
and not for any act or omission which constitute an
offence under Indian Penal Code.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17948/2021 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
71. Hence, merely because initiation of proceeding for
commission of an offence under the MMDR Act on the
basis of complaint cannot and shall not debar the police
from taking action against persons for committing theft
of sand and minerals in the manner mentioned above by
exercising power under the Code of Criminal Procedure
and submit a report before the Magistrate for taking
cognizance against such person. In other words, in a case
where there is a theft of sand and gravels from the
Government land, the police can register a case,
investigate the same and submit a final report under
Section 173, Cr.P.C. before a Magistrate having
jurisdiction for the purpose of taking cognizance as
provided in Section 190 (1)(d) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
72. After giving our thoughtful consideration in the
matter, in the light of relevant provisions of the Act vis-à-
vis the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Penal
Code, we are of the definite opinion that the ingredients
constituting the offence under the MMDR Act and the
ingredients of dishonestly removing sand and gravel from
the river beds without consent, which is the property of
the State, is a distinct offence under the IPC. Hence, for
the commission of offence under Section 378 Cr.P.C., on
receipt of the police report, the Magistrate having
jurisdiction can take cognizance of the said offence
without awaiting the receipt of complaint that may be
filed by the authorized officer for taking cognizance in
respect of violation of various provisions of the MMRD
Act. Consequently the contrary view taken by the
different High Courts cannot be sustained in law and,
therefore, overruled. Consequently, these criminal
appeals are disposed of with a direction to the concerned
Magistrates to proceed accordingly."
9. Applying ratio stated herein above, filing of charge-sheet
against the petitioner under the provisions of MMDR Act is not
maintainable in view of bar under section 22 of the MMDR Act.
Therefore, charge sheet qua said offence is required to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17948/2021 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
quashed.
10. For the reasons stated herein above, I pass the following
order :-
10.1. The petition is partly allowed. Charge-sheet and
consequential proceedings filed in FIR being CR. (F.I.R) Part-
A No.11185003200708 of 2020 registered with
Jamkalyanpur Police Station, Devbhoomi Dwarka for the
offence under the provisions of Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act and Rules made thereunder
is hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that this Court
has not examined merits of the case. It would be open for the
concerned authority to file written complaint subject to
provision of law in regard to investigation and material
collected during investigation of offence under Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and Rules made
thereunder. If such complaint is filed by officer as stated under
section 22 of Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, it shall be dealt with in accordance with law by
competent Court without being influenced by quashing of
offence.
10.2 The petition stands disposed of as not pressed for offence
under section 379 and section 120B of IPC.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
MANISH MISHRA
