Illegal Mining | Police Can Probe Theft Under IPC, But MMDR Offences Require Authorised Complaint: HP High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that while the police are competent to register and investigate cases of theft of illegally extracted minerals under the Indian Penal Code, cognizance of offences under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 cannot be taken on a police report and must be based on a complaint by an authorised officer.Justice Rakesh Kainthla...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that while the police are competent to register and investigate cases of theft of illegally extracted minerals under the Indian Penal Code, cognizance of offences under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 cannot be taken on a police report and must be based on a complaint by an authorised officer.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that:“...dishonestly removing sand, gravel and other minerals… without the consent, constitute an offence of theft… the police can register a case, investigate the same and submit a final report..the Court cannot take cognisance of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Mining Act on a police report…”
The case arose from an FIR registered after police, acting on secret information, found several tippers and machinery allegedly involved in illegal extraction of minor minerals from government land in District Hamirpur. The minerals were reportedly being transported to a stone crusher linked to the petitioner.
The petitioner challenged the FIR, contending that the mining activity was carried out on leased land and that offences under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) are non-cognizable, making police action invalid.
The Court stated that offences under the MMDR Act and theft under the IPC are distinct and can co-exist. While MMDR violations require a specific complaint, theft of minerals from State land constitutes a separate cognizable offence.
Further the Court remarked that the Court cannot take cognisance of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Mining Act on a police report.
Based on demarcation reports and witness statements, the Court concluded that illegal mining was being carried out on State-owned land and the extracted minerals were being transported for the petitioner's benefit.
Thus, the Court partly allowed the petition and and ordered the quashing of offences punishable under sections 21 and 22 of the Mining Act and directed to proceed with FIR under section 379 read with 120-B of IPC.
Case Name: Vijay Kumar V/s State of H.P. & others
Case No.: CrMMO No.242 of 2022
Date of Decision: 21.04.2026
For the petitioners: Mr Rajiv Jiwan, Senior Advocate, with M/s Prashant Sharma and Yug Singhal, Advocate
For the respondents: Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.