ORDER : Banwari Lal Sharma, J. Petitioner/Accused Aaseen has preferred this Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 202/2016 dated 19.03.2016 registered at Police Station Tijara, District Alwar (Raj.) for offence under Sections 29, 32, 33, 41, 42, 52 of Forest Act, Section 4 & 21 of M.M.R.D. Act, Section 48 & 68 of M.M.C.R. 1986 and Section 379 IPC as well as subsequent proceedings initiated thereupon. 2. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 202/2016 dated 19.03.2016 registered at Police Station Tijara, District Alwar (Raj.) for offence under Sections 29, 32, 33, 41, 42, 52 of Forest Act, Section 4 & 21 of M.M.R.D. Act, Section 48 & 68 of M.M.C.R. 1986 and Section 379 IPC as well as subsequent proceedings initiated thereupon. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.03.2016 Ramesh Chand Meena, Junior Scientist Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Alwar along with Lalit, Assistant Mining Engineer and Range Forest Officer, Kishangarhbas, district Alwar (Raj.) submitted a report before the SHO, Police Station Tijara, stating there in that :- ^^egksn; fouez fuosnu gS fd vkt fnukad 19-03-2016 dks voS/k [kuu ds fo:) dk;Zokgh djus ds fy, la;qDr vfHk;ku ny [kku foHkkx] jktLo foHkkx ou foHkkx iqfyl foHkkx] i;kZoj.k foHkkx dk ny ckykst iqfyl Fkkuk frtjk igqapk rks eSa esokr LVksu Øflax daiuh fudV xzke ckyksM py jgk Fkk nwj ls gh ny dks vkrk ns[kdj voS/k [kuu drkZ Øslj ij dk;Z djus okys vius okgu MEij] VsªDVj o ts0lh0ch0 ysdj ny ds jkLrs dks ts0lh0ch0 ls [kksnrs gq;s iRFkj yqM+dkrs gq;s jkLrs esa O;o/kku djrs gq,s gfj;k.kk dh rjQ Hkkx x;s rFkk jkLrs ls [kkbZ;ksa dk O;o/kku gksus ds dkj.k mUgsa ugha idM+k tk ldk ny us jkLrs dks lkQ dj igkM+ tks fd ou foHkkx dk gS ij igqap dj ns[kk rks igkM+ ckykst xzke ds vkjkth [ka0ua0 3&7&8&92 esa voS/k [kuu ds rktk iRFkj iM+s gq,s ik;s x;s bl voS/k [kuu LFky ls eSa esokr LVksu Øflax dEiuh rd rktk iRFkj ifjogu ds fu'kku feysA eSa esokr LVksu ij rktk ckykst ds igkM+ ls yk;s djhc 400 eu iRFkj feys ftUgsa jf{kr ou {ks= ckykst ls pksjh dj ifjogu dj yk;k tku ik;k x;k Øslj ij dqN ek=k esa rktk jksM+h o MLV Hkh ik;k x;kA vkl&ikl ds yksxksa ls tkudkjh djus ij ik;k x;k fd ;g Øslj Jh vklhu iq= Jh jger eso fuoklh 270 xzke xksnku rglhy frtkjk ftyk vyoj ds }kjk lapkfyr fd;k tk jgk gSA buds ikl ts0lh0ch0 e'khu MEij] dEisz'kj vkfn e'khujh gS rFkk ;s yksx igkM+ esa foLQksV djds voS/k [kuu djrs gSa bu yksxksa ds }kjk nhokj rksM+ fn;k tkuk ik;k x;k ,oa bl nhokj dks rksM+dj voS/k [kuu dk jkLrk cuk fy;k gSA eSa esokr LVksu Øflax dEiuh ij iM+s feys ou {ks= ds iRFkj 400 eu yxHkx dks tCr fd;k x;k rFkk Øslj ds ekfyd vkfn ekSds ij ugha gksus ds dkj.k ,l0,p0vks0 frtkjk dh lqiqnZxh esa fn;k x;kA Øslj ij tCr fd;s x;s iRFkj ds lSEiy rFkk igkM+ jgu ij xzke ckykst jf{kr ou esa voS/k [kuu fd;s x;s iRFkj ds lSEiy vyx tCr fd;s x;s ftUgsa yscksjsVªh ¼iz;ksx'kkyk½ esa psd djok;k tk;sxk eSa esokr LVksu Øflax dEiuh ds ekfyd ds fo:) iwoZ esa ,Q0vkbZ0 uEcj 395@14 o 714@15 iqfyl Fkkuk frtkjk esa ntZ djokbZ tk pqdh gS mDr izdj.k ou foHkkx dh Hkwfe ls voS/k [kuu dj pksjh dj ou mit ds ifjogu dk ik;k x;k tks fd jkt ou vf/kfu;e 1953 dh /kkjk 29&32&33&41&42 ,oa 5] 2 ,e0,e0vkj0Mh0 ,DV] 1957 dh /kkjk 4 o 21 ,e0,e0lh0vkj0] 1986 ds fu;e 48&68 rFkk jktLo dh pksjh djus ls vkbZ0ih0lh0 dh /kkjk 379 o 120ch vkbZ0ih0lh0 dk mYya?ku djus ls n.Muh; vijk/k dh Js.kh esa vke gSA lkFk gh ;g d`R; ,u0th0Vh0 ds vkns'kksa ij fu;eksa dk mYya?ku gSA ;g Øslj fcuk i;kZoj.k iznw"k.k fu;a=.k e.My dh lapkyu lEefr ds py jgk gSA tks i;kZoj.k vf/kfu;e] 1981 dk mYya?ku gSA fjiksVZ is'k dj fuosnu gS fd mijksDr Øslj ekfyd ds fo:) mijksDr /kkjkvksa esa eqdnek ntZ dj dBksj ls dBksj dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djus ds Je djsaA** 3. On the said report FIR no. 202/2016 for the aforesaid offences was registered at Police Station Tijara, District Alwar and investigation commenced. Matter is under investigation. During investigation of the aforesaid FIR, petitioner-accused Aaseen filed this Misc. Petition for quashing the same. 4. Learned Counsel for petitioner Ms. Sunita Vashishtha submits that petitioner is owner of crusher machine. He has been implicated falsely in this case. The allegations levelled by the complainant are false and concocted. The alleged offences are not cognisable, therefore as per Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. police has no power to register FIR and investigate the matter without order of magistrate. She also submits that the crusher machine of petitioner is not working since 2012 and for permission she has filed application which was rejected by the competent authority against which appeal was filed before NGT and the same is pending. She submits that if anyone illegally excavate the mining operations and drop the material nearby crusher machine then petitioner is not responsible for that since petitioner is not operating the crusher machine, therefore impugned FIR may be quashed. 5. Per contra Mr. Anurag Sharma, Learned AAG appearing on behalf of respondent-State submits that in view of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay reported in 2014 (9) SCC 772 police is empowered to register FIR and investigate the matter in alleged offence. He submits that it is admitted that petitioner is not having valid licence for operating crusher machine still he is operating and crushing the stones as such he committed alleged offences, therefore no case is made out for quashing FIR. 6. Investigating Officer Mr. Netram, ASI P.S. Tijara, District Alwar is also present in person who submitted factual report of the matter through Learned AAG which is taken on record. 7. As per factual report, petitioner has started crusher machine and committed illegal mining and theft and exported it, therefore offence under Section 29, 32, 33, 41, 42, 52 of Forest Act, Section 4 & 21 of M.M.R.D. Act, Section 48 & 68 of M.M.C.R. 1986 and Section 379 IPC is made out. 8. I have considered the submissions made by Learned Counsel for petitioner and Learned AAG and perused the available record with factual report. 9. 8. I have considered the submissions made by Learned Counsel for petitioner and Learned AAG and perused the available record with factual report. 9. In the matter of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that :- "Considering the principles of interpretation and the wordings used in Section 22, in our considered opinion, the provision is not a complete and absolute bar for taking action by the police for illegal and dishonestly committing theft of minerals including sand from the river bed. The Court shall take judicial notice of the fact that over the years rivers in India have been affected by the alarming rate of unrestricted sand mining which is damaging the eco-system of the rivers and safety of bridges. It also weakens river beds, fish breeding and destroys the natural habitat of many organisms. If these illegal activities are not stopped by the State and the police authorities of the State, it will cause serious repercussions as mentioned herein above. It will not only change the river hydrology but also will deplete the ground water levels. There cannot be any dispute with regard to restrictions imposed under the MMDR Act and remedy provided therein. In any case, where there is a mining activity by any person in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 and other sections of the Act, the officer empowered and authorised under the Act shall exercise all the powers including making a complaint before the jurisdictional magistrate. It is also not in dispute that the Magistrate shall in such cases take cognizance on the basis of the complaint filed before it by a duly authorised officer. In case of breach and violation of Section 4 and other provisions of the Act, the police officer cannot insist Magistrate for taking cognizance under the Act on the basis of the record submitted by the police alleging contravention of the said Act. In other words, the prohibition contained in Section 22 of the Act against prosecution of a person except on a complaint made by the officer is attracted only when such person sought to be prosecuted for contravention of Section 4 of the Act and not for any act or omission which constitute an offence under Indian Penal Code. In other words, the prohibition contained in Section 22 of the Act against prosecution of a person except on a complaint made by the officer is attracted only when such person sought to be prosecuted for contravention of Section 4 of the Act and not for any act or omission which constitute an offence under Indian Penal Code. However, there may be situation where a person without any lease or licence or any authority enters into river and extracts sands, gravels and other minerals and remove or transport those minerals in a clandestine manner with an intent to remove dishonestly those minerals from the possession of the State, is laible to be punished for committing such offence under Sections 378 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. From a close reading of the provisions of MMDR Act and the offence defined under Section 378, IPC, it is manifest that the ingredients constituting the offence are different. The contravention of terms and conditions of mining lease or doing mining activity in violation of Section 4 of the Act is an offence punishable under Section 21 of the MMDR Act, whereas dishonestly removing sand, gravels and other minerals from the river, which is the property of the State, out of State's possession without the consent, constitute an offence of theft. Hence, merely because initiation of proceeding for commission of an offence under the MMDR Act on the basis of complaint cannot and shall not debar the police from taking action against persons for committing theft of sand and minerals in the manner mentioned above by exercising power under the Code of Criminal Procedure and submit a report before the Magistrate for taking cognizance against such person. In other words, in a case where there is a theft of sand and gravels from the Government land, the police can register a case, investigate the same and submit a final report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. before a Magistrate having jurisdiction for the purpose of taking cognizance as provided in Section 190 (1)(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In other words, in a case where there is a theft of sand and gravels from the Government land, the police can register a case, investigate the same and submit a final report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. before a Magistrate having jurisdiction for the purpose of taking cognizance as provided in Section 190 (1)(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After giving our thoughtful consideration in the matter, in the light of relevant provisions of the Act vis-a-vis the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Penal Code, we are of the definite opinion that the ingredients constituting the offence under the MMDR Act and the ingredients of dishonestly removing sand and gravel from the river beds without consent, which is the property of the State, is a distinct offence under the IPC. Hence, for the commission of offence under Section 378 Cr.P.C., on receipt of the police report, the Magistrate having jurisdiction can take cognizance of the said offence without awaiting the receipt of complaint that may be filed by the authorised officer for taking cognizance in respect of violation of various provisions of the MMRD Act. " 10. Apart from above, Section 155 (4) Cr.P.C also comes in picture where cognisable and non-cognisable offence both are committed, then the matter will be treated as cognisable offence and police has power to investigate the matter, in such situation section 155(2) Cr.P.C. doesn't help the petitioner. 11. So far as the submissions made by Learned Counsel for petitioner are concerned that the crusher machine of petitioner is closed and he has no concern with the alleged matter is concern, it is matter of investigation for which this Court while deciding the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot comment. 12. In the matter of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335], Hon'ble Supreme court have framed following seven grounds on the basis of which the FIR can be quashed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para No.105, observed as under:- "105. 12. In the matter of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335], Hon'ble Supreme court have framed following seven grounds on the basis of which the FIR can be quashed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para No.105, observed as under:- "105. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognisable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognisable offence but constitute only a non-cognisable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 13. In this matter, none of the above ground exist for quashing FIR, therefore the Misc. Petition devoids merit which is hereby dismissed.