Ajay Kumar Dubey @ Bablu Dubey vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 9595 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Ajay Kumar Dubey @ Bablu Dubey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 September, 2024

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                   W.P. (Cr.) No. 467 of 2024
                                 ----

Ajay Kumar Dubey @ Bablu Dubey, aged about 50 years, son of Late Parshuram Dubey, Resident of Village - Khirbar, P.O. - Purabdiha, P.S. - Chainpur, District - Palamau, Jharkhand .... Petitioner

-- Versus --

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. The District Mining Officer, Palamau, Medininagar, PO and PS -

Medininagar, District - Palamau .... Respondents

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

     For the Petitioner       :-    Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, Advocate
                              :-    Mr. Sahja Nand Saraswati, Advocate
     For the State            :-    Mr. Devesh Krishna, SC Mine III
                              :-    Mr. Kumar Pawan, AC to SC Mine III
                                    ----
05/24.09.2024           This petition has been filed for quashing the F.I.R.

bearing Chainpur P.S. Case No. 0010 of 2024 registered for the offences under

sections 21 of Mines and Minerals Development Regulation (MMDR) Act, 1957

as well as Rule 54/04 of Jharkhand Mines Minerals Concession (JMMC) Rules,

2004 and Section 13(i) of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining

Transport and Storage) Rules, 2017, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M,

Palamau.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that MMDR Act is itself a Code.

He submits that only complaint can be maintained so far MMDR Act is

concerned. He submits that in that view of the matter, at least that part of order

may be quashed.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the case in hand is

fully covered in the light of judgment in the case of " Jayant Vs. State of

M.P. and Another "(2021) 2 SCC 670 wherein para 21.4 it has been held as

--1-- W.P. (Cr.) No. 467 of 2024 under:-

"21.4. That in respect of violation of various provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder, when Magistrate passes an Order under Section 156 (3) of the Code and directs the police the In-charge/SHO station of the register/lodge the crime case/FIR in investigation the concerned respect of the violation of various provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and thereafter after sent police station/investigating officer In-charge of the concerned submits a report, the same to the Magistrate concerned as well authorised officer as mentioned in Section 22 of the MMDR will thereafter the authorized officer concerned may file the complaint before the learned Magistrate along with the report submitted by the investigating officer concerned and thereafter it will be open for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance after following due procedure, issue process/summons in respect of the violations of the various provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder and at that stage it can be said that cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate."

4. In view of para 21.4 of the aforesaid judgment this petition is being

disposed of. Once the investigation is completed, follow up action shall be taken

in the light of para 21.4 of the said judgment.

5. W.P. (Cr.) No.467 of 2024 is disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands

disposed of.

                                             (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
     Sangam/




                                           --2--                             W.P. (Cr.) No. 467 of 2024