JUDGMENT A. N. Chaturvedi, J. This is an application under Articles 226 227 of the Constitution of India by petitioner Kishore Kumar Jain for issuance of an appropriate writ, rule or direction for quashing the F.I.R. of Pakur Mufassil P.S. Case No. 62 of 1991 dated 29.4.1991 against the petitioner under Sections 420, 468, 379 of the Indian Panel Code and Section 40 of the Mines Act. 2. In the petition, it is has been Stated that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/S Kishore Kumar Jain having business of mining in the State of Bihar. On 9th September, 1983, he (petitioner) obtained a mining lease (Annexure-1) for excavating stones from the Government of Bihar for a period of five years for carrying out the mining in Plot Nos. 690, 691, 699, 700, 701, 702 and several other plots of village Rajbandh as detailed in Para 4 of the application and for disposing of the same (stones). The aforesaid lease deed was executed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj on behalf of the State of Bihar in presence of the two witness namely, the District Mining Officer and Assistant Mining Officer as well as in presence of Head Assistant of the District Mining Officer of Sahebganj. In pursuance of the lease deed, he (petitioner) deposited Rs. 1000/- as security amount for meeting the preliminary expenses for mining lease, a sum of Rs. 200/- was also deposited by him. For conducting the aforesaid mining operations and disposing of the mineral the petitioner made an agreement with Raiyats on whose lands the mining operation was to be carried out. The petitioner carried out the mining operation to the full satisfaction of the officials of the mining department as well as to the full satisfaction of the landholders. The said lease was renewed for the further period of five years vide lease deed dated 13th March, 1989 (Annexure 2) for carrying out the mining operation and disposing of the minerals. In pursuance of the agreement between the raiyats and the petitioner the raiyats sworn affidavits before the Executive Magistrate, Pakur stating therein that they had given their lands for conducting mining operation and disposing of the same by the petitioner for which the petitioner has to pay a fixed amount per acre as mentioned in the affidavits (Annexure 3 series). In pursuance of the agreement between the raiyats and the petitioner the raiyats sworn affidavits before the Executive Magistrate, Pakur stating therein that they had given their lands for conducting mining operation and disposing of the same by the petitioner for which the petitioner has to pay a fixed amount per acre as mentioned in the affidavits (Annexure 3 series). In pursuance of the agreement the raiyats opened S. B. Accounts in post office saving banks for depositing of the amount, they were entitled to lieu of the land, they had given to the petitioner for mining operations. As per lease deed, the petitioner used to pay the royalty and cess to the Government regularly under challans (Annexure 5 series) but in spite of all these, the Respondent no. 2 who is the Circle Officer filed Pakur Mufassil P.S. Case No. 62 of 1991 alleging therein that the petitioner was carrying out the mining operation on the basis of lease deed without the knowledge of the raiyats and was not paying compensation to them. It had also been alleged in the F.I.R. (Annexure - 6) that the petitioner was disposing of the stones without paying case and royalty to the Government. 3. A perusal of the F.I.R. (Annexure-6) shows that Pakur Mufassil P.S. Case No. 62 of 1991 has been registered under Section 420, 453, 378 of the Indian penal Code Section 40 of the Bihar State mines Act. It was rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no Bihar State Mines Act but there is Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 and Section 40 perhaps refer to Rule 40 of Bihar Minor Mineral Concession, 1972 which contains penal... provision. It was also pointed out that Section 40 the Mines Act is not a penal Section rather is regarding employment of persons below eighteen years of age in Mines. provision. It was also pointed out that Section 40 the Mines Act is not a penal Section rather is regarding employment of persons below eighteen years of age in Mines. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Rule 41 of Bihar Mineral concession Rules, 1972 and pointed out that the said Rule provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under these rules (Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972) except upon complaint made in writing by the competent Officer or Deputy Director of Mines or Additional Director of Mines or Director of Mines or any other office empowered by the Government It was further pointed out that "Competent Officer" has been defined in Rule 2 (iii) of the Bihar Minor Mineral concession Rule, 1972 and a perusal thereof would show that the Circle Officer who has lodged F.I.R is not mentioned therein rather the District Mining Officer and Assistant Mining Officer of the District or Circle are the competent Officer to file complaint. A perusal of the said provisions shows that there is much substance in the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the State could not show any provision according to which the circle Officer (Respondent No. 2) was competent to initiate prosecution for the offence under rule 40 of the Bihar Minor Mineral concession Rules, 1972. 4. As mentioned above, the said case has been registered under Section 379, 420 and are of the Indian Penal Code also. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when special provision as contained in Rule 40 of the Bihar Minor Mineral concession Rules, 1972 has been made applicable to the extraction or removal of minor Minerals, Section 379 of the Indian penal Code cannot be allowed to be applied to such case apart from the fact that neither the Circle Officer had Jurisdiction to institute a case nor the police had authority to entertain the same. 5. In the F.I.R son chore Matal Chore, Munsi Chore, Babaji chore and Smt. Marang mai Chore have been described as present raiyats of plot nos. 690, 691, 699, 700, 701 and 702 of village Rajabandh. 5. In the F.I.R son chore Matal Chore, Munsi Chore, Babaji chore and Smt. Marang mai Chore have been described as present raiyats of plot nos. 690, 691, 699, 700, 701 and 702 of village Rajabandh. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Annexure 3 series which are affidavits sworn by the raiyats Son Chore Babaji Chore, Matal Chore and others therein that the lands of plot nos. 701 and 702 were full of stones and were lying use less and they were not in a position to make the lands useful by excavating the stones there from and due to this they have given their shares of India in the said plot to the petitioner on rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per acre per anaum for excavation of stones there from, The learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to Annexure 7 which is a petition filed on behalf of the raiyats as named in the F.I.R and some others. In the petition (Annexure 7) it has been Stated that there are scours in plot nos. 690, 691, 699, 700, 701, 702 and they have given the aforesaid lands to the petitioner Kishore Kumar Jain for mining purpose and they had never raised any objection against the lease holder (petitioner) regarding the aforesaid lands it has also been started their in that it is false to say that the petitioner has fabricated document concerning the aforesaid lands in his favor and is not paying compensation to the raiyats The learned counsel further referred to the counter affidavit field on behalf of the Respondent No 5 to 10 and pointed out that it is been specifically Stated in the counter affidavit that the said respondents had never made any complain, to any authority with regard to lease for non payment of compensation by the petitioners It has been Stated in the counter affidavit that respondent nos. 5 to 10 had given their consent as far back as in the year 1982 and had received compensation also from the lease holder and they have no complain against the writ petitioner nor had made any complaint before any authority. The petitioner has also brought on record Annexure-4 series for the purpose of showing that the amount of rent was being deposited in the S.B account standing in the names of the raiyats. The petitioner has also brought on record Annexure-4 series for the purpose of showing that the amount of rent was being deposited in the S.B account standing in the names of the raiyats. In view of Annexure 4 series, Statements made by the raiyats in the aforesaid affidavits (Annexure 3 series) petition (Annexure 7) and counter affidavit no case under Section 379, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. 6. As regard the allegation in the F.I.R. that the petitioner had no crusher machine and he was supplying the stones to a local person having crusher, machine without paying royalty and case, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred, to Annexure 5 series and pointed out that the amount of royalty and case was being deposited by the petitioner. It was also pointed out that had the petitioner not deposited the amount of royalty and case, his lease would not have been renewed for a further period for five years. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure 8 series attached with the supplementary affidavit which appear to have come into existence after the institution of the case. 7. In view of what has been pointed out above, the prosecution lunch against the petitioner appears to be a me abuse of the process of the court. In view of this read petition is allowed and F.I.R of Pakur Mufassil P.S. Case No. 62 of 1991 as contained in Annexure 6 is here by quashed. Application allowed.