- (1.) Heard Sri Siddhartha Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Prabhash Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the material on record.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 10.07.2019, which has been registered as FIR No. 0221/2019, under Section 379 IPC and Section 4 / 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 and Rule 3, 7 and 57 of U.P. Miner Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963, P.S. Sarai Akil, District Kaushambi.
(3.) It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned first information report lodged by the respondent no.4 is against the provisions of law as Section 22 of 1957 Act, provides that cognizance in such matters can only be taken on the complaint made by a person authorized by the competent authority and likewise Rule 74 of U.P. Miner Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 also provides similar embargo on the point of cognizance. It has been submitted that the provisions of Mines and Minerals Act, 1957, being special provision, would prevail over general law. It has been next argued that the petitioners were not found at the spot nor they have indulged in any illegal mining and thus, no offence is made out against them. Learned counsel has relied upon the case of Jeewan Kumar Raut and Anr. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2009) 7 SCC 526.;