Ananda Sen, J. - (1.) In these petitions, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 8.3.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in G.R. No. 3354 of 2014 and G.R. No. 3356 of 2014 in connection with Chauparan P.S. Case no. 124 of 2014 and Chauparan P.S. Case no. 126 of 2014, respectively, whereby, charge has been framed under Section 379 IPC, Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (for short MMDR Act) and Section 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.
(2.) Both the First Information Report as Chauparan P.S. Case No. 124/2014 and Chauparan P.S. Case no. 126 of 2014 have been lodged alleging therein that during inspection at Saloniya Area, it was found that the petitioners of both cases, who are the proprietors of M/s Bajrang Stone and M/s Parwati Stone Works, respectively, were engaged in illegal business/mining of stone without having any lease/licence. It was also alleged that Diesel Engine and Stone Crusher Machine were found at the place of occurrence, which was in running condition. Upon investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 379 IPC, 4(1)A/21 of the MMDR Act and Sections 48, 54 and 67 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004. Upon receipt of the charge-sheet, the learned trial court vide order dated 8.3.2016 has framed charges for the offence under Sections 379 IPC, 21 of the MMDR Act and Section 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset restricted his prayer and argument and only challenges the charge and cognizance in respect of the offence under Section 21 of the MMDR Act. He submits that as per Section 22 of the MMDR Act, there is a bar on taking cognizance upon an FIR. He submits, that charges cannot be framed under the said Section against the petitioners. He also submits that as per MMDR Act, cognizance can be taken only on a complaint made by an authorised person and since the instant case does not arise from a complaint within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C., no cognizance could have been taken in these case under Section 21 of MMDR Act and consequently, the charge framed under Section 21 of the MMDR Act against both the petitioners is absolutely bad and is liable to be quashed.;