ORDER : The petitioners have sought for quashing of the entire FIR in Crime No.303/2017 pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Gudibande at Chikkaballapur District and further investigation by the Gudibande Police for the offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC, Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011, Section 4(1), 4(1)(A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,1957 and also under Section 42 of the Karnataka Mines and Mineral Consistent Rules, 1994. 2. On the information given by Mr. G.V. Sandeep Geologist attached to Mines and Geology Department, Chikkaballapur District, Respondent No.1Gudibande Police have registered a case in Crime No.303/2017, for the above said offences. 3. The brief allegations are that, the accused persons have been indulged in stone crushing business without any licence or permission from the competent authority and after crushing the stones, they were transporting the same in order to have wrongful gain. It is specifically alleged that on 20.09.2017 when the Geologist and others have visited the place called Chikkanagavalli, Yelagarahalli and Nanda Nagenahalli of Chikkaballapur Taluk, they found crushed stones and as well as some vehicles parked in the spot, which were ready for transporting the crushed stones. The police in connection with the above acts of the petitioners, registered a case in Crime No.303/2017 for the aforesaid offences and in connection with that, they have also seized certain articles. 4. It is worth to mention here that, the Hon’ble Apex Court in a decision reported in State NCT of Delhi Vs. Sanjay reported in AIR 2015 SC 75 at Paragraphs 69 to 62, has observed that the police can investigate the matter only with regard to the offences under Sections 378 and 379 of IPC and any other offences under IPC provisions, however, in view of the bar contained under Section 22 of MMDR Act, the police have no jurisdiction to investigate and file any report under Section 173 of Cr.PC. nor the Court can take cognizance of such offences, unless a private complaint is filed in writing by an authorized person, either of the Central Government or the State Government in that behalf under said Act. This court also elaborately considered various decisions in Crl.P. No.6279/2017 disposed on 15.11.2017 in the case of Vivek Vs. nor the Court can take cognizance of such offences, unless a private complaint is filed in writing by an authorized person, either of the Central Government or the State Government in that behalf under said Act. This court also elaborately considered various decisions in Crl.P. No.6279/2017 disposed on 15.11.2017 in the case of Vivek Vs. State of Karnataka and Another and laid down various guidelines as to how the offences under the MMDR Act or KMMC Rules have to be conducted by means of filing a private complaint before the court and how the police can investigate the offences under the penal provision of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, in view of the above said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and also the said decisions rendered by this court, it is crystal clear that, the police have no jurisdiction to investigate the offences under the provisions of MMDR Act and KMMC Rules. 5. In the above circumstances, if there is any such allegations which attract the provisions under MMDR Act and KMMC Rules, an authorized Officer as per Section 22 of MMDR Act is at liberty to take appropriate action by filing an appropriate private complaint before the competent court. Therefore, to that extent, the police have no jurisdiction to investigate such offences and submit any report under Section 173 of Cr.PC.. Hence, to that extent the FIR deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER The petition is partly allowed. The FIR in connection with Crime No.303/2017 and all further investigation therein, so far it pertains to the offences under MMDR Act and KMMC Rules are hereby quashed. However, the police can continue the investigation and file an appropriate report under Section 379 of IPC, before the court having jurisdiction. In view of disposal of this case, the application - IA No.1/2018 filed for stay, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the said application stands disposed of.