Harmela Ram vs State of Haryana

Sabina, J.—Vide this order, the above mentioned two petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have sought quashing of FIR No. 221 dated 29.10.2010 under Sections 379, 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) registered at Police Station Mullana District Ambala (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the offence, if any, could be said to have been committed by the petitioners under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (the Act for short). With regard to the said offence, FIR could not have been registered. Court could take cognizance of the offence only on the basis of the complaint in writing made by the authorised person in this behalf. Hence, FIR in question was liable to be quashed.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.

Prosecution story, in brief, is that petitioners were indulging in illegal mining in the land belonging to Department of Mines and Geology. Hence, it was prayed that FIR be registered against the petitioners and their co-accused under Sections 379 and 188 IPC.

Thus, the allegations against the petitioners are that they were indulging in illegal mining. As per Section 4 of the Act, no person shall undertake any mining operation in any area except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting licence. Further no person shall transport or store or cause to be transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provision of the Act.

As per Section 21 of the Act, whoever, contravenes the provisions of Sub Section 1 or Sub Section 1-A of Section 4 of the Act, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to Rs. 25,000/- or with both.

Section 22 of the Act reads as under:-

Cognizance of offences.

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 authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government.

Thus, as per Section 22 of the Act, no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf.

Since in the present case, the complaint should have been filed under the Act in writing by the authorised person, the FIR in question is liable to be quashed as the Court cannot take cognizance of the offence unless there is a complaint in writing by the authorised person with regard to commission of offence punishable under the Act. The authorised person instead of filing a complaint in writing sought registration of FIR against the petitioners and their co-accused, which could not have been done in view of Section 22 of the Act.

Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. FIR No. 221 dated 20.7.2009 under Sections 379, 188 IPC registered at Police Station Mullana District Ambala (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. However, the authorised person would be at liberty to initiate proceedings against the petitioners under the Act, if there is any violation of any provision of the said Act.