Allahabad HC Reiterates Limited Scope of S.482 CrPC While Refusing to Quash Illegal Mining Case

The Allahabad High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings arising out of an alleged case of illegal sand mining, holding that while cognizance for offences under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules can be taken only on a complaint by an authorised officer, prosecution for allied offences under the Indian Penal Code can validly proceed on the basis of a police charge sheet where a prima facie case is disclosed.

A single judge bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh dismissed an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the charge sheet dated 15.09.2020, the cognizance and summoning order dated 1.04.2024 and the entire proceedings arising out of a case registered at Naini Police Station, Prayagraj, under Sections 379 and 411 of the IPC, along with provisions of the MMDR Act and the U.P. Minor Minerals Rules.

The case arose from an FIR lodged in August, 2020 alleging that a large quantity of sand and stone aggregates were found stored on land belonging to the Allahabad Development Authority and were being illegally used for sale.

During investigation, the police recorded statements of the informant, the concerned lekhpal and other witnesses, and eventually submitted a charge sheet invoking offences under the IPC as well as under the MMDR Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

While taking cognizance, the Magistrate declined to take cognizance for offences under the MMDR Act and the Rules, but proceeded to take cognizance under Sections 379 and 411 IPC. This selective cognizance formed the core grievance of the applicant, who argued that the Magistrate could not have split the charge sheet and that, in any event, the essential ingredients of theft were not made out since ownership of the allegedly stolen property was not clearly identified.

Opposing the plea, the State contended that the Magistrate had acted strictly in accordance with settled law, and that cognizance under the IPC was validly taken on the basis of the police report where the investigation disclosed commission of cognizable offences.

The High Court examined the statutory bar contained in Section 22 of the MMDR Act and the corresponding provisions under the U.P. Minor Minerals Rules, which prohibit courts from taking cognizance of offences under the mining law except upon a complaint in writing by an authorised officer. Relying on Supreme Court decisions including Kanwar Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Jayant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court reiterated that while such a bar applies to offences under the MMDR Act and the Rules, it does not extend to offences under the IPC arising out of the same transaction.

The Court noted that the Supreme Court has consistently held that in cases involving illegal mining, the police are competent to register an FIR, investigate the matter, and submit a final report for offences under the IPC such as theft, even though prosecution under the MMDR Act must be initiated only through an authorised complaint; The Magistrate, therefore, was justified in taking cognizance under Sections 379 and 411 IPC while declining to take cognizance under the MMDR Act and the Rules in the absence of a complaint by an authorised officer.

On the plea for quashing, the High Court reiterated the well-settled principle that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. Referring to the guidelines laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and subsequent Supreme Court precedents, the Court observed that criminal proceedings can be quashed only where the allegations, taken at face value, do not disclose any offence, or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides.

Applying these principles, the Court found that the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclosed prima facie allegations of illicit mining and theft of sand from government land; Statements of witnesses recorded during investigation supported the prosecution version, and it could not be said at this stage that no cognizable offence was made out against the applicant.

The Court emphasised that at the stage of considering a quashing petition, it is neither permissible nor advisable to undertake a roving enquiry into disputed questions of fact or to assess the sufficiency or reliability of evidence. Issues relating to ownership of the property, the applicant’s role, and the ultimate sustainability of the prosecution case were held to be matters for trial, it was added.

Rejecting the argument that the proceedings were an abuse of process, the High Court held that the case did not fall within any of the recognised categories warranting exercise of inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings. The Court further observed that questions of fact and mixed questions of law and fact raised by the applicant could be appropriately adjudicated only by the trial court after evidence is led.

Accordingly, the application under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed, with the Court holding that the impugned charge sheet and proceedings did not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference at the threshold.

Counsel(s) appearing: Abdul Ahad, Omar Zamin, Advs. for the Petitioner; O.N. Mishra, A.G.A. for the State.

Case Title: Mujeeb Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Bench: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh

Date of Judgment: 12.12.2025