Safiya Malik

The Gujarat High Court has quashed an FIR registered under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act), and associated provisions, citing procedural lapses in compliance with statutory requirements. The judgement, delivered by Justice Divyesh A. Joshi, stated that cognizance of offences under the MMDR Act can only be taken based on a complaint filed by an authorized officer, as stipulated in Section 22 of the Act.

The petitioner, Ramabhai Jivabhai Keshwala, sought to quash an FIR registered as C.R. No. I-48/2016 with Bhayavadar Police Station, Rajkot. The FIR alleged violations under Sections 379 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Rules 3, 5, 6, 8, and 13 of the Gujarat Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation, and Storage) Rules, 2005, and Sections 4(1) and 4(1A) of the MMDR Act.

The FIR was filed following a surprise inspection conducted by the Assistant Geologist, during which machinery and vehicles involved in alleged illegal mining were identified. The complaint was subsequently lodged by a Royalty Inspector.

The petitioner, represented by advocate Mr. Darshil Kamdar, argued that the FIR and chargesheet filed pursuant to it were unsustainable under Section 22 of the MMDR Act. It was submitted that Section 22 bars courts from taking cognizance of offences under the Act unless a written complaint is filed by an officer authorized by the government.

The petitioner contended that the chargesheet filed by the police was not accompanied by the requisite complaint from an authorized officer, rendering the proceedings invalid. The petitioner also pointed to a prior judgment by the Gujarat High Court in 2024, which addressed similar issues and quashed FIRs on analogous grounds.

Assistant Public Prosecutor Mr. Manan Mehta, appearing for the State, argued that the FIR was consistent with procedural norms and that it was open to the authorities to initiate action under the MMDR Act.

The court addressed the statutory requirements outlined in the MMDR Act, with specific reference to Sections 4 and 22.

• Section 4 of the MMDR Act: Prohibits mining operations, including transportation or storage of minerals, without appropriate permits or leases issued under the Act.

• Section 22 of the MMDR Act: States that no court shall take cognizance of offences under the Act or related rules unless a written complaint is filed by an officer authorized by the Central or State Government.

The court referred to its own earlier order dated July 3, 2024, which dealt with an identical issue. In that case, the High Court held that:

1. The police can register an FIR for offences under the MMDR Act.

2. Cognizance of such offences by a Magistrate, however, requires a written complaint filed by an authorized officer, and not merely a chargesheet filed by the police.

Justice Joshi noted that this principle had also been upheld by the Supreme Court, which noted the distinction between cognizable offences under the IPC and those under the MMDR Act.

The court observed: “It is not open for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence punishable under the Act, 1957, after filing of the chargesheet. Instead, it is the prerogative of an authorized officer to file a written complaint before the Magistrate, relying upon the investigation conducted by the police.”

Justice Joshi recorded that in the present case, the FIR was lodged by a Royalty Inspector, who is not an authorized officer under the MMDR Act. Additionally, the chargesheet filed by the police lacked the requisite written complaint from an authorized officer. The court stated: “The absence of a complaint from an authorized officer, as required under Section 22, vitiates the proceedings.”

The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of NCT of Delhi v. Sanjay (2014), which clarified that unauthorized complaints under the MMDR Act render subsequent proceedings legally unsustainable.

The Gujarat High Court quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings. However, it left open the possibility for the authorities to initiate fresh action in compliance with statutory requirements.

Justice Joshi directed: “It shall be open for the authority concerned to file a private complaint in the Court of the learned Magistrate, of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act, 1957, through an authorized officer. If such a complaint is filed, the Magistrate concerned shall proceed to consider the same in accordance with law.”

The court recorded observations regarding the procedural compliance of police investigations under the MMDR Act, stating that while the police are permitted to investigate and register FIRs, they are not authorized to independently file chargesheets for offences under the Act without the involvement of an authorized officer.

Case Title: Ramabhai Jivabhai Keshwala v. State of Gujarat & Another
Case Number: R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 3975 of 2020
Bench: Justice Divyesh A. Joshi

[Read/Download order]