Wednesday, 03, Jun, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Rajsibhai Ramsibhai Khodbhaya vs State Of Gujarat
2025 Latest Caselaw 5925 Guj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5925 Guj
Judgement Date : 22 April, 2025

Gujarat High Court

Rajsibhai Ramsibhai Khodbhaya vs State Of Gujarat on 22 April, 2025

                                                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.MA/6643/2014                                   ORDER DATED: 22/04/2025

                                                                                                              undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                            R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
                                          FIR/ORDER) NO. 6643 of 2014

                       ==========================================================
                                          RAJSIBHAI RAMSIBHAI KHODBHAYA & ORS.
                                                          Versus
                                                STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       SHRIRAM K BHARGAW(9436) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
                       MS DIVYANGNA JHALA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                       ==========================================================
                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                                                            Date : 22/04/2025

                                                             ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R.No.I-4 of 2014 registered with Patanvav Police Station, Rajkot for the offences under Sections 379, 186, 114 of Indian Penal Code and sections 4(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Brief facts of the case is as under :-

2.1. That on 20.02.2014, Head Constable and other staff members of Patanvav Police Station has taken visit of Bhadar river and they found that the accused persons i.e. petitioners were illegally excavating sand from River Bhadri and used vehicle for that purpose. Hence, FIR was registered.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/6643/2014 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

3. Learned advocate for the petitioners 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, 186, 114 of Indian Penal Code, sections 4(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (for short "MMDR Act").

3.1. Learned advocate for the petitioners at the outset would submit that he is not pressing present petition so far as offence under section 379, 186, 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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/6643/2014 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

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 from the riverbed of river Bhadri 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. 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."

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/6643/2014 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/6643/2014 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

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.

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."

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/6643/2014 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

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 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 C.R.No.I-4 of 2014 registered with Patanvav Police Station, Rajkot 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, 186 and section 114 of IPC.

(J. C. DOSHI,J) SATISH

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter