Special complaint requirement bars FIR-based prosecution for mineral and environmental offences arising from excess sand excavation.

Excess sand excavation by a valid settlee was treated as a breach of settlement conditions attracting extra royalty, not illegal mining by itself. For offences under the MMDR Act, the Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, and the Environment (Protection) Act, cognizance was said to depend on a complaint by the authorised statutory authority or a prescribed complainant, so an FIR could not replace that special complaint procedure. The text also states that the facts did not disclose theft, cheating, or criminal breach of trust under the IPC, and that mere directorship does not create vicarious criminal liability without a statutory basis and specific role attribution. Civil liability for excess excavation was left open.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether FIRs alleging excess sand excavation were maintainable and whether cognizance could be taken for offences under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1972 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 without a complaint by an authorised officer. (ii) Whether the allegations disclosed offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner, including in view of the claim that he was only a director of the company and that excess excavation was not illegal mining.

Issue (i): Whether FIRs alleging excess sand excavation were maintainable and whether cognizance could be taken for offences under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1972 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 without a complaint by an authorised officer.

Analysis: The allegations related to excess excavation by a valid settlee, which the governing sand policy, work orders, agreements and the relevant rules treated as a breach of settlement conditions attracting liability to pay extra royalty. The material did not disclose illegal mining in the sense of unlicensed extraction. For offences under the MMDR Act and the 1972 Rules, Section 22 of the MMDR Act and Rule 41 of the 1972 Rules required cognizance only upon a written complaint by the authorised authority, and an FIR by the Mines Inspector could not satisfy that requirement. For the Environment (Protection) Act, Section 19 likewise permitted cognizance only on the complaint of the specified authorities or a person giving the prescribed notice; the informant was not an authorised complainant. As the special statutory procedure controlled the field, the police FIR route was impermissible.

Conclusion: The FIRs were not maintainable for the statutory offences, and prosecution on that basis could not continue.

Issue (ii): Whether the allegations disclosed offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner, including in view of the claim that he was only a director of the company and that excess excavation was not illegal mining.

Analysis: The record showed only excess excavation by a lawful settlee, not clandestine removal of mineral without authority. On that footing, the ingredients of theft under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were not made out. The facts also did not show dishonest inducement at the inception of the arrangement, so the ingredients of cheating and criminal breach of trust under Sections 420 and 406 were absent. Criminal law does not recognise vicarious liability in the absence of a statutory provision, and the IPC contained no basis to fasten liability on the petitioner merely because he was a director, especially when the company itself was not arraigned as an accused and no specific role was attributed to him.

Conclusion: The IPC offences were not made out against the petitioner, and he could not be prosecuted on a theory of vicarious liability.

Final Conclusion: The continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law, and the writ petitions were liable to be allowed with quashing of the impugned FIRs. The Court left civil liability arising from excess excavation open.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute makes cognizance conditional on a complaint by an authorised authority, an FIR cannot substitute that complaint, and excess excavation by a valid licensee is not, by itself, criminal theft or a basis for vicarious criminal liability under the IPC absent the requisite mens rea and a statutory foundation.

---