JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Bengabad P.S. Case No.41 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code, under Rule 4/54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 and under Section 21/22 of MMDR Act, 1957 including the charge sheet no.19/24 dated 28.01.2024 and the order taking cognizance dated 29.02.2024 on the ground that though the person authorized for the offences punishable under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 or the rules made thereunder by the Central Government or the State Government having not made any complaint in writing to the learned Magistrate, but the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code, under Rule 4/54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 and under Section 21/22 of MMDR Act, 1957. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of NCT of Delhi vs. Sanjay and others , 2014 (6) Supreme 209 , paragraph-68 of which reads as under:- “68. 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 authorized 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 authorized 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 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jayant vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , 2021 (1) Supreme 109 , paragraph-13 of which reads as under:- “13. After giving our thoughtful consideration in the matter, in the light of the relevant provisions 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: (i). After giving our thoughtful consideration in the matter, in the light of the relevant provisions 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: (i). that the learned Magistrate can in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) of the Code order/direct the concerned In-charge/ SHO of the police station 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; (ii) 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 Rules made thereunder and orders issuance of process/summons for the offences under the MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder; (iii) for commission of the offence under the 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 Rules made thereunder; (iv) 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 concerned In- charge/ SHO of the police station to register/lodge the crime case/FIR in respect of the violation of various provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder and thereafter after investigation the concerned In- charge of the police station/investigating officer submits a report, the same can be sent to the concerned Magistrate as well as to the concerned authorised officer as mentioned in Section 22 of the MMDR Act and thereafter the concerned authorised officer may file the complaint before the learned Magistrate along with the report submitted by the concerned investigating officer and thereafter it will be 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 Rules made thereunder and at that stage it can be said that cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. (v) in a case where the violator is permitted to compound the offences on payment of penalty as per sub-section 1 of Section 23A, considering sub-section 2 of Section 23A 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 rule made thereunder so compounded. However, the bar under sub-section 2 of Section 23A shall not affect any proceedings for the offences under the IPC, such as, Sections 379 and 414 IPC and the same shall be proceeded with further.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that the law is well settled that upon commission of the offences under Indian Penal Code on receipt of police report, the Magistrate having jurisdiction can take cognizance of the offence without awaiting for the report of the complainant that may be filed by the Authorized Officer for taking cognizance in respect of the violation of the various provisions of MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder and fairly submits that though the prayer made in this criminal miscellaneous petition, is to quash the entire criminal proceeding, but the petitioner confines the prayer to quash the cognizance order in respect of the offences punishable under penal provisions of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 as well as MMDR Act, 1957. 5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State fairly submits that in the absence of any complaint in writing having been made by the persons authorized in respect of the offences punishable under the penal provisions of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 as well as MMDR Act, 1957 or the rules made thereunder by the Central Government or the State Government, the learned Magistrate has erred in taking cognizance of the offences punishable under the penal provisions of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 as well as MMDR Act, 1957. 6. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as rightly submitted by the learned counsels at the bar that it is a settled principle of law that the offences punishable under the penal provisions of MMDR Act, 1957 or the rules made thereunder can only be taken if and only if, a person authorized in respect of said offences by the Central Government or the State Government files a complaint in writing. Undisputedly, in this case there is no complaint filed by any person authorized by the Central Government or State Government. 7. Under such circumstances, in view of mandatory provision of law in shape of Section 22 of MMDR Act, 1957, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the cognizance order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in Bengabad P.S. Case No.41 of 2022 is not sustainable in law so far as the same relates to offences punishable under penal provisions of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 as well as MMDR Act, 1957. 8. Accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside while maintaining the said order in respect of the cognizance dated 29.02.2024; passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in Bengabad P.S. Case No.41 of 2022; so far as it relates to offence punishable under Section 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed.