ORDER The petitioner in this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeks to quash the complaint, FIR and entire further proceedings in Crime No.5/2014 of Lokayukta Police Station and pending on the file of Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Raichur. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent and have perused the complaint dated 25.07.2014 lodged by the Dy. S.P. of Karnataka Lokayukta with the Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta respondent herein and the FIR submitted by the said Police Inspector to the Special Court, Raichur. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits if any offence punishable under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘MMDR Act’) or any rules made thereunder is alleged to have been committed no Court shall take cognizance of the same in the absence of a complaint in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government as per Section 22 of the said Act. 4. He submits the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Raichur is not a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government as contemplated under Section 22 of the MMDR Act to lodge a complaint and therefore the registration of such complaint by the respondent police and forwarding of an FIR in that regard to the Special Court viz., Prl. Sessions Judge, Raichur is bad in law. With the above grounds, he prays the Court to allow the petition as prayed for. 5. Sri S.S. Kumman, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent police submits that if the complaint lodged by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Raichur and registration of such complaint by the respondent police is only for violation of the provisions of MMDR Act or rules thereunder, the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the MMDR Act or any Rules made thereunder except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. Whereas, in the instant case, the petitioners apart from committing the offences under KMMC Rules, have also committed the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘P.C. Act’) and under Section 120 (B) of IPC. Therefore, the complaint lodged by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Raichur and registration of such complaint by the respondent police and forwarding of FIR thereon to the Special Court is just and proper. 6. He submits since the Prl. District & Sessions Court/District & Sessions Court of the respective district is the designated Special Court, empowered to try the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act along with any other offence punishable under any other enactment, the submission of FIR by the respondent police to the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Raichur based on the complaint made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Raichur is in order. 7. He submits, no case is made out by the petitioners for quashing the complaint, FIR and further proceedings in Cr.No.5/2014 and he prays for rejection of the petition. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration in this petition is; “Whether the complaint lodged by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, the registration of such complaint by the respondent police and forwarding of FIR thereon to the Special Court are bad in law and further proceedings of the complaint are liable to be quashed?” 9. In order to answer the above point, it is necessary to extract the very provisions of Section 22 of the MMDR Act which reads as under; “22. Cognizance of offence. No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunder except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government.” 10. If a person commits various offence under different enactment and if any one of such enactment stipulates that no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government as stipulated under Section 22 of the MMDR Act, in such case, the complaint has to be made as per the procedure prescribed under the said Act. 11. 11. As seen from the complaint lodged by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Raichur and registration of such complaint by the respondent in crime No.5/2014 against the petitioners is for the offences alleged to have been committed by them under the provisions of KMMC Rules, under Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and for the offence punishable under Section 120(B) of the IPC. 12. If the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent that since the petitioners apart from committing the offences in violation of provisions of KMMC Rules have also committed the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act and under Section 120(B) of IPC and since the Prl. District & Sessions Court being the Special Court empowered to try the offences under Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act and therefore, the complaint lodged by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the registration of such complaint by the respondent police and forwarding FIR thereon to the Special Court are in order is accepted, then in every case where offence is committed only under the provisions of special enactments like MMDR Act, the police could insert some offence as if they are committed either under IPC or under some enactment which does not prescribe procedure to lodge complaint as prescribed in Section 22 of the MMDR Act and defeat the purpose of the mandatory procedure prescribed under special enactment like Section 22 of MMDR Act, which is not the intention of the legislature while inserting Section 22 of MMDR Act. 13. It is to be held that if a person commits various offences under different enactment, if any one of such enactment like MMDR Act mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence committed under such special enactment or rules made under such special enactment except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government and in such case, if the complaint is not made in writing by a person authorised in that behalf by the Central Government or the State Government, the Court cannot take cognizance of such offence. 14. 14. It is not the case of the respondent that offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners in violation of the provisions of KMMC rules, under Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act and under Section 120(B) of IPC are severable in nature and three separate complaints have been lodged, one for the offence committed for violation of the provisions of KMMC Rules, another for commission of offence under Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act and yet another for the offence punishable under Section 120(B) of the IPC. 15. In the instant case, it is to be seen that the offences alleged in the complaint lodged by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Raichur to the respondent are in separable in nature and the complaint is mainly for violation of the provisions of KMMC Rules and the offences alleged under P.C. Act and IPC are ancillary offences. 16. Admittedly, no complaint is made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government as contemplated under Section 22 of the MMDR Act. 17. It is in this background, when similar issue has come up for consideration before this Court in Crl. P. No. 200131/2014 and connected petitions, this Court referring to the various provisions of MMDR Act and KMMC Rules wherein also offence alleged to have been committed in violation of KMMC Rules and under other provisions of law including IPC and Karnataka Land Revenue Act, has held that the complaint made by a person other than the authorised person as contemplated under Section 22 of the MMDR Act is bad in law and the registration of such complaint and submission of FIR to the Court is also bad in law and consequently it vitiates the entire proceedings and this Court has allowed these criminal petitions and quashed the further proceedings of the crime. I do not find any special ground to deviate from the said view or take a different view from the one taken by this Court in the cases stated supra. On the other hand, I hold that the facts and circumstances of the instant case are identical to the facts and circumstances of the case referred to in the aforementioned criminal petitions. 18. On the other hand, I hold that the facts and circumstances of the instant case are identical to the facts and circumstances of the case referred to in the aforementioned criminal petitions. 18. At this stage, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent submits liberty may be given to register the case in the event of authorised person makes a complaint as contemplated under Section 22 of the MMDR Act. It is needless to say that if a complaint is made as per the Section 22 of MMDR Act, it has to be registered and proceeded in accordance with law. 19. Accordingly, I pass the following; ORDER The petition is allowed. The complaint, FIR and entire further proceedings in Crime No.5/2014 of Lokayukta Police Station, Raichur pending on the file of the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Raichur are hereby quashed. It is always open to the person concerned to make a complaint as contemplated under Section 22 of the MMDR Act and in such the complaint has to be registered and proceeded in accordance with law.