Gujarat High Court
Piyushkumar Jaswantbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 10 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13692/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 13692 of 2018
==========================================================
PIYUSHKUMAR JASWANTBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.JAY S SHAH(7244) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 10/07/2025
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 I-C.R.No.32 of 2018 registered with
Ladol Police Station, Mehsana for the offences under Sections
379 of Indian Penal Code, sections 4(1) and 4(1)(A the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and sections 3 and 7
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. That on 16.03.2018, complainant went to survey lease of
the petitioner situated at Jetpur Village of Vijapur Taluka, that
at the lease site with presence of petitioner the survey was
carried out and limit sign was not seen due to water and no sign
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13692/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
board was found at the lease site, that no equipment or vehicle
used for sand mining was found at the site and that between
October, 2016 to March, 2018, the petitioner has mined total
1,01,321.26 metric ton but at the site no mining acitivity could
be seen and royalty pass was missued. Hence, the present FIR
was registered.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Shah 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 of Indian Penal Code, sections
4(1) and 4(1)A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act (for short "MMDR Act") and sections 3 and 7 of
the Gujarat Minerals Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation
and Storage Rules, 2017.
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13692/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
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. 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13692/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13692/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
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.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13692/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
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
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-32 of 2018
registered with Ladol Police Station, Mehsana 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13692/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
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 of IPC.
10.3 The investigation / trial of offence under section 379 of IPC
shall be continued against the petitioner without being
influenced by aforesaid observation.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
