Mere Initiation Of Proceedings Under Mine & Minerals Act Doesn't Debar Police From Lodging Case For Theft Of Sand/Minerals: Gujarat HC

Referring to a Supreme Court order on illegal mining of sand/minerals, the Gujarat High Court reiterated that even if an offence under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act is made out on which magistrate cannot take cognizance without complaint by authorized officer, it however does not debar police from lodging a case for theft of sand/minerals. 

Justice Divyesh A Joshi in his order referred to the Supreme Court's 2014 judgment which said, "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...However, there may be situation where a person without any lease or licence or any authority enters into river and extracts sands, gravels and other minerals and remove or transport those minerals in a clandestine manner with an intent to remove dishonestly those minerals from the possession of the State, is liable to be punished for committing such offence under Sections 378 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code". 

The Apex Court had thereafter said, "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".

The high court referred to a coordinate bench's July 2024 order which had in turn referred to the Supreme Court's 2014 order while hearing a plea seeking quashing of an FIR registered under IPC Sections 379 (theft) and 114 (presence of abettor when the offence is committed) and Sections 4(1) (prohibition of mining operations without a valid license or lease) and 4(1A) (prohibition of transportation or storage of minerals extracted unlawfully) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (MMDR) Act. 

In the present case the Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the matter is covered by the previous order of the High Court wherein a similar issued was addressed and urged the court to quash and set aside the FIR and the chargesheet filed and to further grant the liberty to take appropriate action under the MMDR Act.

The State's Counsel did not dispute the order relied upon by the petitioner's Counsel and submitted that court may pass an order with the liberty to the concerned officer to initiate proceedings under the MMDR Act.

Taking note of the coordinate bench's decision the high court said, “In view of the above, it is clear that the present case is covered by the aforesaid order, therefore, deserves to be allowed.”

The Court then quashed the FIR, while granting liberty to the concerned authority to file a private complaint before the magistrate's court under the offences punishable under Section 4 of MMDR Act. 

"However, it is clarified that it shall be open for the authority concerned to file a private complaint in the Court of the learned Magistrate concerned, of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act, 1957, through an authorized officer in that behalf putting replying upon the material and evidence collected so far in connection with the impugned FIR, and if such private complaint is filed, the Magistrate concerned shall proceed to consider the same in accordance with law," it said. 

Case Title: Ramabhai Jivabhai Keshwala vs State of Gujarat & Anr.

Case Citaiton: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 9

Click Here To Read/Download Order