ORDER : 1. By way of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR being C.R. No. II-1 of 2014 registered before Rajkot Taluka Police Station, District Rajkot for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 5, 6, 13 of the Gujarat Mineral Prevention of Illegal (Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2005, Sections 4(1), 4(1)A, 21 of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act and Sections 4 and 68 of the Gujarat Mines and Minerals Rule, 2005 as well as other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner. 2. The facts of the case suggest that on 21.10.2013, D.K. Patel, Assistant Geologist (Mineral Researcher) Rajkot, has sent one report to the complainant to the Police Sub-inspector, Police station, Jamnagar Road Taluka, District Rajkot and on the basis of same, FIR came to be registered. It was learnt that in the Government waste land of village Kathariya, Blacktrap mineral was being illegally excavated and transported without any royalty pass, the Officer seized the six tractors being (1) MP-44-M-312. (2) GJ-10-AF-4904. (3) GJ-3-L-2242. (4) MP-14-K-9118, (5) GJ-12-E-8157 and (6) GRG-9774 and sent to Rajkot Taluka Police station and tractor No. GRG-9774, was sent to the office of Senior Geologist as it got puncture. Thereafter statement of drivers and labourer were recorded, from which, it was found that excavation and transportation was done since more than a year, under instruction of Bhanjibhai Ramjibhai Solanki i.e. present applicant and all excavated goods were transported to Kothariya at Dipak Minerals Crusher Plant. It is stated that blasting was also done by the present applicant. On 21.10.2013, inspection was carried out in the excavated land and in presence of Talati-cum-Mantri, Sarpanch and few panchas land was measured by total station machine. On 24.10.2013 to get specific gravity of the excavated land, sample of four rocks, was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Gandhingar. 2.1 It is stated that on 24.10.2013 officials had visited crusher plant of present petitioner viz. Dipak Minerals, the said land survey no. 352 was in the lease of Dipak Mineral, which has remanded closed for last seven years as the mining lease was cancelled and as per the order in the appeal, the case is remanded to the Collector of Rajkot. Dipak Minerals, the said land survey no. 352 was in the lease of Dipak Mineral, which has remanded closed for last seven years as the mining lease was cancelled and as per the order in the appeal, the case is remanded to the Collector of Rajkot. Thereafter, it was found that illegal mining had taken place in survey no. 352 as well as in survey no. 40, 41 and 45 and statements were recorded of the owner of survey no. 40 and 41 on 28.10.2013, who stated that their land is at another place under cultivation and they are not connected with the mining. After detail inspection and measurement with the map of the area with FSL report of sample, it was found that lease of Blacktrap was given to the present applicant earlier for the year 1990 to 1996, and thereafter, was not renewed. During the lease period as per office record, about 5349 metric ton was produced. 2.2 In accordance to measurement map of the excavation by the surveyor, in survey no. 352 in the old lease area, the total excavation was 83557.62 cubic meter. It appears from the FSL sample report multiplying the asodic gravity of 2.99 total of 2,49,837 metric tons was found to be excavated. The register showed just 5349 metric ton, so it was learnt that since 1990 to 1996 total of 2,44,488 metric ton, illegally, mining of mineral was done from survey no. 352. And from survey no. 40, 41 and 45, total of 5,37,243 metric tons illegally mining of minerals was done. 3. Heard Mr. Jal Unwala, learned Senior Advocate alongwith Mr. Rutviz Oza, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned APP for the respondent-State. 4. Senior advocate Mr. Unwala submits that survey no. 40, 41 and 45 does not belong to the present petitioner. Further there was no illegality found till the year 1996, merely to create pressure and to show the offence to be as grave and serious, random estimate has been made stating to be illegal mining of both the lands to exaggerate the amount on both the land of Rs. 12,03,86,574/-. 4.1 Senior Advocate Mr. Unwala submits that upto 1996 petitioner was holding valid lease deed and there would have been regular inspection and monitoring on the activity undertaken by the petitioner on the land, which was granted under the lease. 12,03,86,574/-. 4.1 Senior Advocate Mr. Unwala submits that upto 1996 petitioner was holding valid lease deed and there would have been regular inspection and monitoring on the activity undertaken by the petitioner on the land, which was granted under the lease. Hence, there could not be any case of illegal mining or consequently any fine to be prescribed. 4.2 Senior Advocate Mr. Unwala submits that after delay of 16 years, the complaint has been filed, which is itself, is bad in law, since provisions under Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to in short as ‘the MMDR Act’) itself bars the registration of the FIR before a police station, and if at all, geologist has any grievance, he could have followed the provisions of Section 22 or in the alternative could have undertaken the provisions of 23A of the MMDR Act. 4.3 Senior Advocate Mr. Unwala, submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the matter and the mater is before the concerned Magistrate for the stage of taking of offence. He further submits that Section 22 of the MMRD Act would not permit any Court to take cognizance of the offence punishable under the MMRD 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. 4.4 Relying the judgment in the case of Vishalbhai Rameseshbhai Khurana and Another vs. State of Gujarat and Another passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5230 of 2010 and other allied matters on 03.09.2010 and in the case of Suresh Fakirchand Parmar vs. State of Gujarat and Others passed in Special Criminal Application No. 980 of 2011 alongwith Criminal Misc. Application No. 12498 of 2014 on 24.12.2014, Senior Advocate Mr. Unwala submits that this Court has considered the issue and has concluded, that the Magistrate is prevented from taking cognizance of the offence, otherwise on a complaint by an authorised officer and not on a mere police report. He also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jayant and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2021) 2 SCC 670 . 5. Mr. He also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jayant and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2021) 2 SCC 670 . 5. Mr. Trivedi, learned APP stated that the Legal Department by Notification dated 29th July, 2022, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (hc) of section 3 read with section 30B of the MMRD Act, in concurrence of High Court has designated the ‘Special Court’ to try the offences, for contravention of the provisions of Sub-Section (1) or Sub-section (1A) of Section 4 of the Act. 5.1 Learned APP submits that now, the issue has been settled by way of the judgment Jayant and Others (supra) and stated that the Hon’ble Apex Court has very descriptively explained referring to various judgments, about the course to be adopted by the authorised person for filing of the complaint since no Court would be empower to take cognizance of the complaint, without any authorised person complaint on behalf of the Central Government or the State Government. 6. The FIR which has been registered against the present petitioner does not suggest that any section of the Indian Penal Code has been invoked. Section 22 of the MMRD Act reads as under: “22. Cognizance of offences - 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.” 7. In the case of Jayant and Others (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the scope and manner in which the provisions of the Act has to be implemented. In Paragraphs 21 to 21.5 of the judgment, it was held as under: 21. After giving our thoughtful consideration in the matter, in the light of the relevant provision of the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder vis-a-vis the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Penal Code, and the law laid down by this Court in the cases referred to hereinabove and for the reasons stated hereinabove, our conclusions are as under: 21.1. After giving our thoughtful consideration in the matter, in the light of the relevant provision of the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder vis-a-vis the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Penal Code, and the law laid down by this Court in the cases referred to hereinabove and for the reasons stated hereinabove, our conclusions are as under: 21.1. That the learned Magistrate can in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) of the Code order/direct the In-charge/SHO of the police Station concerned to lodge/register crime case/FIR even for the offences under the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder and at this stage the bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act shall not be attracted. 21.2. The bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act shall be attracted only when the learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the offences under the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder and orders issuance of process/summons for the offences under the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder. 21.3. For commission of the offence under IPC, 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 MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder. 21.4. 21.3. For commission of the offence under IPC, 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 MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder. 21.4. That in respect of violation of various provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder, when a Magistrate passes an order under Section 156(3) of the Code and directs the In-charge/SHO of the police station concerned to register/lodge the crime case/FIR in respect of the violation of the various provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and thereafter after investigation the In-charge of the Police Station/Investigating Officer concerned submits a report, the same can be sent to the Magistrate concerned as well as to the authorised officer concerned as mentioned in Section 22 of the MMDR Act and thereafter the authorised officer concerned may file the complaint before the learned Magistrate alongwith the report submitted by the Investigating Officer concerned and thereafter, it will open for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance after following due procedure, issue process/summons in respect of the violations of the various provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder and at that stage, it can be said that cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. 21.5. In a case where the violator is permitted to compound the offences on payment of penalty as per sub-section (1) of Section 23-A, considering sub-section (2) of Section 23-A of the MMDR Act, there shall not be any proceedings or further proceedings against the offender in respect of the offences punishable under the MMDR Act or any Rules made thereunder so compounded. However, the bar under sub-section (2) of Section 23-A shall not affect any proceedings for the offences under IPC, such as, Sections 379 and 414 IPC and the same shall be proceeded with further. 8. Section 23A of the MMDR Act is with regard to the compounding the offence. Section 23A is reflected herein-under: 23A. However, the bar under sub-section (2) of Section 23-A shall not affect any proceedings for the offences under IPC, such as, Sections 379 and 414 IPC and the same shall be proceeded with further. 8. Section 23A of the MMDR Act is with regard to the compounding the offence. Section 23A is reflected herein-under: 23A. Compounding of offences: (1) Any offence punishable under this Act or any rule made thereunder may, either before or after the institution of the prosecution, be compounded by the person authorised under section 22 to make a complaint to the court with respect to that offence, on payment to that person, for credit to the Government, of such sum as that person may specify: Provided that in the case of an offence punishable with fine only, no such sum shall exceed the maximum amount of fine which may be imposed for that offence. (2) Where an offence is compounded under sub-section (1), no proceeding or further proceeding, as the case may be, shall be taken against the offender in respect of the offence so compounded, and the offender, if in custody, shall be released forthwith. 9. The provisions have made it clear that the offence which is punishable under the Act or the Rule made thereunder may, either before or after the institution of the prosecution, be compounded by the person authorised under section 22 to make a complaint to the Court with respect to that offence. Thus, very provision gives authority to the person, who is authorised by the State Government or the Central Government to compound offence. Since as in case like the present FIR would be filed in the police station, this opportunity of compounding by the authorised person would get lost. The provision by way of Section 22 of the MMRD Act makes it clear that the Court would not be in a position to take cognizance of the offence, unless except, there is a compliant given in writing by the authorised person. Since very person, who is authorised to file the complaint would also have authority under Section 23A of the MMRD Act to compound the offence, on payment of such money credit to the Government as a person may specify, the offence would get compounded. Since very person, who is authorised to file the complaint would also have authority under Section 23A of the MMRD Act to compound the offence, on payment of such money credit to the Government as a person may specify, the offence would get compounded. 9.1 Section 23A of the MMRD Act further provides therein if in a case of an offence punishable with fine only, then no such sum shall be imposed for the offence which exceed the maxim amount of fine. Sub-Section (2) of Section 23A further makes it clear that when offence is compounded under Sub-section(1), no proceeding or further proceeding, as the case may be, shall be taken against the offender in respect of the offence so compounded, and if the offender, is in custody, shall be released forthwith. 10. Thus, conjoint reading of Sections 22 and 23A of the MMRD Act, makes it clear that no cognizance can be taken for the offence if private complaint has not been filed by the authorised person of State or Central Government. Here, in this case, the impugned FIR is registered before the police which is against the provisions laid down. 11. In view of the above, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the ratio laid down in the case of Jayant and Others (supra), the present application is allowed. The impugned FIR being C.R. No. II-1 of 2014 registered before Rajkot Taluka Police Station, District Rajkot is quashed and set aside and all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are also quashed and set aside qua the present petitioner.