JUDGMENT :- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In the present criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the First Information Report (F.I.R.) in connection with Rajrappa P.S. Case No. 110 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 2813 of 2014 registered u/s 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1956 (MMDR Act for short) and Section 8 of Jharkhand Mineral Dealers Rule 2007. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, the informant, who is a Mines Inspector of Ramgarh, inspected the premises of M/s. Mahalaxmi Fuels owned by the petitioner and in course of enquiry certain irregularities were found. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the time of installation of the factory, a coal linkage was granted by M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. of about 4810 M.T. per month whereas at present 894 M.T. of coal per month is being allotted and that's why there has been a difference between the stock book and weight assessed by the surveyor. He has further submitted that although the FIR has been instituted u/s 4/21 of the MMDR Act, 1956, but Section 22 of the said Act precludes the Court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any Rules made thereunder except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. He has further submitted that Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), 1973 defines a complaint which means that any allegation made orally or in writing is to be made to a Magistrate with a view to taking action under law and since Section 22 of the MMDR Act specifically mentions about a "complaint in writing", the police officials were not authorized to register an F.I.R. In such context, he claims that the F.I.R. with respect to initiation of a criminal case u/s 4/21 of the MMDR Act, 1957 is fit to be quashed. He also contends that since the Jharkhand Mineral Dealers Rules, 2007 for which also the petitioner is being prosecuted has been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 23(C(1)(2) of the MMDR Act, 1957, therefore Section 22 of the MMDR Act will also be applicable and for violation of this Rule also any criminal prosecution is to be instituted on a complaint made in writing. 4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has submitted that the F.I.R. reveals that several discrepancies were found at the time of inspection and whatever stand has been taken by the petitioner in his application for quashing the F.I.R. is his defence which cannot be looked into while exercising the power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. 5. After hearing the counsel for both the sides and after perusing the records, it appears that the F.I.R. was instituted only under the provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Jharkhand Mineral Dealers Rules, 2007 and that too, not on the basis of a complaint but by registration and institution of an F.I.R. Section 22 of the MMDR Act, 1957, specifically lays down that a complaint in writing has to be made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government in order to enable the Courts to take cognizance for the offences punishable under the provisions of MMDR Act and any rules made thereunder. An F.I.R. is instituted under the provisions of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. and a complaint is defined u/s 2(d) of the Cr.P.C., which does not include an F.I.R. Since Section 22 specifically speaks about a complaint as such institution of a criminal case by registering the F.I.R. would be contrary to the provisions of Section 22 of the MMDR Act, 1957. The provisions of Jharkhand Mineral Dealers Rules 2007 would also be guided by Section 22 of the MMDR Act and in such view of the matter, the very initiation of the criminal proceedings is defective and contrary to the provisions of law. 6. After considering the legal as well as the factual aspect of the case at hand it appears that the very initiation of the criminal prosecution u/s 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1956 and Section 8 of Jharkhand Mineral Dealers Rule 2007, if allowed to continue will amount to an abuse of process of law. 6. After considering the legal as well as the factual aspect of the case at hand it appears that the very initiation of the criminal prosecution u/s 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1956 and Section 8 of Jharkhand Mineral Dealers Rule 2007, if allowed to continue will amount to an abuse of process of law. The inherent powers of the Court dealing with an extra ordinary situation is in the larger interest of administration of justice and for preventing manifest injustice being done. Thus it is a judicial obligation of the Court to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process. 7. In view of the findings recorded above, I do find it a fit case where interference is warranted by this Court and accordingly the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Rajrappa P.S. Case No. 110 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 2813 of 2014 registered u/s 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1956 and Section 8 of Jharkhand Mineral Dealers Rule 2007 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, is hereby quashed. 8. This criminal miscellaneous petition is thus allowed.