1 APHC010150652021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2373/2021 Between: 1. MANOJ, S/O RAJASEKAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC- DRIVER, CASTE- LINGAYATH, BHATUNBRA VILLAGE, BHALKI TALUKA, BHIDAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA DISTRICT. 2. GADDAM HEMANTH KUMAR,, S/O.PARANDAMAIAH, AGED 34 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O..MARTUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P. 3. SHAIK BASHA,, S/O MASTAN, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, CASTE- MUSLIM, OCC- LABOUR, QUARYGUNTA, MARTUR VILLAGE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT AMARAVATI. 2. MR M V SIVA KUMAR, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARTUR P.S., PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. SOMISETTY GANESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed, by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C.No.572 of 2020 on the file of the Court of 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2 Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki, Prakasam District for the offences under Sections 420 and 353 IPC and Section 21(4) of MMDR Act. 2. At the time of hearing, Sri Somisetty Ganesh Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that, this matter is squarely covered by the Order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Poundri Srinu @ Kota Srinivasa Rao vs. State of A.P and another in Crl.P.No.6591 of 2019, dated 03.02.2025, wherein, it was held as follows: “9. It is relevant to extract Section 21(1) and 22 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 21. Penalties:-Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub- section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare of the area. 22. Cognizance of offences: No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made there under except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. 10. A perusal of the provisions of the sections extracted, envisages that 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. In answer to the said aspect, it is relevant to refer Rule 2(1)(a-1-a) of the Rules, defines authorized officer, which means an officer in a rank below Group B, authorized by the State Government or the Commissioner or the Director of Mines and Geology or Deputy Commissioner of the District to act for this specific purpose under this rule. 11. According to the sald Rule, it makes clear that the Police have no authority to entertain a complaint under the Act unless a complaint in writing is made by the persons authorized under Rule 2(1)(a-1-a) of the Rules. The Police even have not stated that they are authorized persons under the Rule nor they accompanied any authorization entitling them to file a complaint. In the absence of compliance of mandatory provisions that have to be followed and as there is no material on record, except confessional statement of A1, to show that the petitioners herein are indulged in transporting illegal granite, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law and hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 3 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.129 of 2019 of Santhamagulur Police Station, Prakasam District, initiated against the petitioner/proposed accused is hereby quashed.” 3. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that it is a covered order. 4. Hence, in view of the Order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.6591 of 2019, dated 03.02.2025, and taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.572 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki, Prakasam District for the offences under Sections 420 and 353 IPC and Section 21(4) of MMDR Act, 2006. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:28.07.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.2373 of 2021 Dt.28.07.2025 Dinesh