LexJAYANT ETC. versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 665 JAYANT ETC. v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal Nos. 824-825 of 2020) DECEMBER 03, 2020 [ASHOK BHUSHAN AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.] Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 – ss.4, 21, 22, 23A – Bar u/ss.22, 23A – When attracted – Illegal mining, storage and transportation of minerals – Magistrate suo motu directed registration of FIR – Applications filed by private appellants for quashing of FIRs for offences u/ss.379, 414, IPC; ss.4/21, MMDR Act and u/r.18, 2006 Rules – Dismissed by High Court – On appeal, held: Magistrate can in exercise of powers u/s.156(3) direct the concerned In-charge/SHO of the police station to register crime case/FIR even for offences under the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder – Bar u/s. 22 is not attracted at this stage – It is attracted only when the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offences under the MMDR Act/Rules and orders issuance of process/summons – In the present case, it cannot be said that at this stage the Magistrate had taken any cognizance of the alleged offences attracting bar u/s.22 – Further, the offences under the MMDR Act as against the private appellants were permitted to be compounded by the competent authority thus, the bar contained in sub-sec.2 of s.23A is attracted – Hence, there shall not be any proceedings/further proceedings in respect of the offences punishable under the MMDR Act/Rule so compounded – However, the aforesaid bar shall not be applicable for offences under IPC, such as ss.379, 414, as offences under the MMDR Act/Rule and under the IPC are different and distinct – Proceedings quashed for offences u/ss.4/21, MMDR Act only – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.379, 414 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.156(3) – M.P. Minerals (Prevention of illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2006 – r.18 – Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 – r.53. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 Reading Section 22 of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) would show [2020] 11 S.C.R. 665 665 A B C D E F G H 666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R. that cognizance of any offence punishable under the MMDR Act or the Rules made thereunder shall be taken only upon a written complaint made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. Therefore, on a fair reading of Section 22 of the MMDR Act, the bar would be attracted when the Magistrate takes cognizance. [Para 8.1][685- A, C] 1.2 The High Court has not committed any error in not quashing the order passed by the Magistrate and not quashing the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 379 and 414. The Magistrate in exercise of the suo motu powers conferred under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. directed the concerned In-charge/ SHO of the police station to lodge/register the crime case/FIR and directed initiation of investigation and directed the concerned In-charge/SHO of the police station to submit a report after due investigation. It cannot be said that at this stage the Magistrate had taken any cognizance of the alleged offences attracting bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act. On considering the relevant provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder, it cannot be said that there is a bar against registration of a criminal case or investigation by the police agency or submission of a report by the police on completion of investigation, as contemplated by Section 173, Cr.P.C. As per Section 21 of the MMDR Act, the offences under the MMDR Act are cognizable. As specifically observed by this Court in the case of Anil Kumar, ‘when a Special Judge refers a complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., obviously, he has not taken cognizance of the offence and, therefore, it is a pre-cognizance stage and cannot be equated with post-cognizance stage’. Even as observed by this Court in the case of R.R. Chari, even the order passed by the Magistrate ordering investigation under Section 156(3), or issuing a search warrant for the purpose of the investigation, he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of the offence. As observed by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of A.R. Antulay, filing of a complaint in court is not taking cognizance and what exactly constitutes taking cognizance is different from filing of a complaint. Therefore, when an order is passed by the Magistrate for investigation to be made by the police under Section 156(3) of the Code, which the M
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.