Supreme Court in the case of Jayant Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh

Case Covered:

Jayant

Versus

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Facts of the Case:

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 11.05.2020 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in M.Cr.C No. 49338/2019 and M.Cr.C. No. 49972/2019, the  original petitioner as well as the State of Madhya Pradesh have preferred the present appeals.

By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the aforesaid applications filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the respective FIRs for the offences under Sections 379 and 414, IPC, Sections 4/21 of  the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MMDR Act’) and under  Rule 18 of the M.P. Minerals (Prevention of illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred  to as the ‘2006 Rules’).

Observations:

After giving our thoughtful consideration in the matter, in the light of the relevant provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder vis­à­vis the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Penal Code, and the law laid down by this  Court in the cases referred to hereinabove and for the reasons stated hereinabove, our conclusions are as under:

i) that the learned Magistrate can in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) of the Code order/direct the concerned   Incharge/SHO of the police station to lodge/register crime case/FIR even for the offences under the MMDR Act and the  Rules made thereunder and at this stage the bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act shall not be attracted;

ii) the bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act shall be attracted only when the learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the offences under the MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder and orders issuance of process/summons for the  offences under the MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder;

iii) for commission of the offence under the IPC, on receipt of the police report, the Magistrate having jurisdiction can take cognizance of the said offence without awaiting the receipt of complaint that may be filed by the authorised officer for  taking cognizance in respect of violation of various provisions of the MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder; and

iv) that in respect of violation of various provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder, when a Magistrate passes an order under Section 156(3) of the Code and directs the concerned In­charge/SHO of the police station to  register/lodge the crime case/FIR in respect of the violation of various provisions of the Act and Rules  made  thereunder  and thereafter after investigation the concerned In­charge of the police station/investigating officer submits a report,  the same can be sent to the concerned Magistrate as well as to the concerned authorised officer as mentioned in  Section  22 of the MMDR Act and thereafter the concerned authorised officer may file the complaint before the learned  Magistrate along with the report submitted by the concerned investigating officer 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 Rules made thereunder and at that stage it can be said that cognizance  has been taken by the learned Magistrate.

v) in a case where the violator is permitted to compound the offences on payment of penalty as per sub­section 1 of  Section 23A, considering sub­section 2 of Section 23A of the MMDR Act, there shall not be any proceedings or further  proceedings against the offender in respect of the offences punishable under the MMDR Act or any rule made   thereunder so compounded. However, the bar under sub­section 2 of Section 23A shall not affect any proceedings for  the offences under the IPC, such as, Sections 379 and 414 IPC and the same shall be proceeded with further.

The Decision of the Court:

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the appeals filed by the violators/private appellants are partly allowed, to the extent quashing the proceedings for the offences under the MMDR Act – Sections 4/21 of the MMDR Act  only. The appeal preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh stands dismissed.

Read & Download the Full Decision in pdf: